Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100014 VISTOSO PARTNERS, 1121 WC::T WAPNQA ROAt. - SUITE 149 • TEM►E, AAIZON.I 1152E4 (480) H31-2O0O • FAX(46o) 891-1604 May 23, 2000 Mr. Bryant Nodine Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Re: Flagpole Variance Dear Bryant: We are working with the Tynan Group representing AT&T Wireless regarding the installation of a flagpole in Rancho Vistoso that will be used as a telephone antenna. This is an excellent way to solve the aesthetic problem of having an antenna sticking up in the air. In addition, we have terrible cell phone coverage in Neighborhood 11 and around the Golf Club at Vistoso so this will help solve the problem. The original proposal was to have the flagpole by the cart barn at the Golf Club at Vistoso. Tynan Group proceeded to process a variance far the flagpole and received it from Oro Valley. That is about when I became involved and realized that Tynan wanted the flagpole to be a permanent structure which would be there for 20-30 years. This will not work since the cart barn is temporary and may be moved alter a permanent clubhouse is built. What I would like to get approved is the relocation of the flagpole and the operations shed down to the Golf Course maintenance building off Pebble Creek Drive. This way, the flagpole and the maintenance shed can be incorporated in with a permanent building and would be easier to blend In with existing facilities. Would tt be possible to transfer the flagpole approval from the Golf Club cait barn to the Goff Club maintenance building without going through a new variance request? Please give me a call at 602-541-1198. Sincerely, --)1114(2-E4-1 Richard Maes RM/mrk Tg TynanGroup Real Estate Development Services August 7, 2000 TO: Dee Widero FR: Martha Kuenhold RE: Variance Applications for the proposed AT&T Wireless Facilities at Quiet Rain/Rancho Vistoso (WAPA) and the Golf Maintenance Yard First, I want to thank you for your special consideration and help with the pending applications for variances. It just gets more complicated each day! Would you please review the accessory building setback for both the Wapa ground equipment and the ground equipment location for the flagpole installation at the Maintenance Yard. Over the weekend I prepared CUP applications for both of the proposed facilities to be reviewed as Major Communication Facilities. As I understand the process today and if they are approved by the Board of Adjustment on August 22nd, Planning and Zoning will review the applications on September 5th. A review by the DRB follows on September 12th with a final review by Council on October 18th. Whew! I really will need desk space and covered parking at the Town offices for the next two months! I have attached the narratives I prepared for the CUP applications for your review. I thought they might be helpful in preparing the staff report for the variances. I am still working on the "Findings" which I am "finding" hard to justify. I will try to have them to you tomorrow. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions or suggestions on how better to present the applications. Again, my sincere thanks. TynanGroup,Inc.•3333 East Camelback Road,Suite 280•Phoenix,Arizona 85018.Office:(602)522-2655•Fax:(602)522-2660•www.tynangroup.com Po_EY qAi 0 ,exv �o TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 0 '" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 A • Parks and Recreation A 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 °UND EO,\g1 August 16, 2000 Martha Kuenhold 1 East Desert Sky Club, Number 2 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: OV10-00-14: Variance for AT&T Wireless to a Major Communication Facility at Honey Bee Ridge and adjacent WAPA Dear Ms. Kuenhold: Planning and zoning staff has re-reviewed your request for variance, using the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) and the Rancho Vistoso (RV) Planned Area Development (PAD) has determined that this project cannot be heard as public hearing before the Board of Adjustment on August 22, 2000. The reason for our decision is as follows. The WAPA pole is located in the RV PAD and the land use designation is Open Space. Since the RV PAD design guidelines do not specify any guidelines for the Open Space district, Staff utilized the Parks & Open Space (P&OS) district in the OVZCR as the underlying zoning district for permitted uses and design standards. This general method of interpretation has been utilized throughout the history of the RV PAD. As per the OVZCR P&OS District, Sec. 8-803A, communication facilities are neither a permitted use nor a conditional use; therefore the application may not be processed. You may request for a zoning code amendment to add communication facilities as a use in the P&OS district of the OVZCR. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that might have been caused by not getting on to this earlier in the process. You were diligently following the instructions of staff. Because the code is relatively new and your project is unique, the interpretation need has evolved. The Town will require a letter of withdrawal at this time. Thank you again for your patience and understanding. If you have any questions, please feel free to call this office and I would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, /6/ Dee Widero Senior Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley Cc: Bryant Nodine Bayer Vella Sangeeta Jain F:\OV\OV10\2000\10-00-14\actionitr.doc 05/L1/UU MU!\ UIS:LU t'AA /U/3001. macula 1\uenno[u curl TynanGroup Real Estate Development Services Facsimile Transmittal To: DEE WIDEEKO Date: August 21,2000 cc: SANGEE A JAIN Fax#: .— From: MARTI-AA KUENHOLD Subject: Number of pages(including cover): 2 Hard Copy: To Follow Not to Follow Good Morning! Attached is the requested letter of withdrawl for the proposed AT&T facility at Honey Bee Ridge. DEE: Would you please fax your staff comments to me at my home fax (no cover needed) at 797-48 t 8. Any comments or concerns for the meeting tomorrow at 3pm? Thanks in advance. Martha The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient„you are hereby notified that you have received this transmission in error, and that any review,dissemination,retention,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange to the return of the original communication to us. Thank you_ TynanGroup,Inc_ 2927 De la Vina Street Santa Barbara,CA 93105 UO/L1/UV 1YJU1V VO.LU ['PIA f U I JOU1 lYldl (Ala IIU Clint)IU A U U L ., Tg... nanGrc . 1 Real Estate Develormnent Services August 21, 2000 Mr. Bryant Nodine Ms. Dee Widero Ms. Sangeeta Jain Town of Oro Valley Community Development Department 11,00,0 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 RE: OV 10-00-14 Variance AT&T Wireless OV 08-00-06 CUP AT&T Wireless Dear Mr. Nodine, Ms. Widero and Ms. Jain: With regret, the Tynangroup on behalf of.AT&T Wireless Service respectfully withdraws both the application for a variance and the application for a conditional use permit for the proposed wireless facility to be lasted at Honey.Bee Ridge. Please accept this letter as a formal request to initiate a zoning code amendment at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled in September. In additon to the proposed site at Honey Bee Ridge, two future sites identified by AT&T Wireless within the Town of Oro Valley may also fall within open space. AT&T Wireless is anxious to do all that is required to move forward with these proposed facilities. I am hoping to schedule a meeting for Thursday,. August 24tt' with Town representatives and the Real Estate Manager for AT&T Wireless. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you need any additional information or documentation. I look forward to finding a mutually beneficial resolution to this matter and appreciate your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Martha Kuenhold Tynangroup Project Manager, Representing AT&T Wireless Services cc: Beth Daison,AT&T Wireless Service Jeff Weir, Town of Oro Valley Scott Stiteler, Stellar Homes Mark Lewis, LMR TnnanGrcKip,I,ir.-3333 TAM Ca!melhack Road.Suite l$U•Phoenix.Arizcmu ti;01$ O[fee.i6021 522 Mir•Fax:s002i S22-2661) w•«w.wn.,ntr-oup.o ii NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 22, 2000, commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-00-14: AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC., REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO A MAJOR COMMUNICATION FACILITY TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A EXISTING UTILITY POLE THAT IS 59.7' TO A HEIGHT OF 61.10'. AND A SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE TWO PARKING SPACES REQUIRED TO ONE PARKING SPACE. SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOCATED AT QUIET RAIN AND RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD IN THE WAPA EASEMENT IN RANCHO VISTOSO, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737. As part of the AT&T Wireless Service's (ATTWS) ongoing network and service improvement, engineers at ATTWS have identified the need for a Personal Communications Service facility to serve the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 13 area. Under current zoning which is Planned Area Development (PAD) Open Space, equivalent to OVZCR R1-144, the maximum height for a Major Communication Facility is 50'. The height of the existing utility pole is 59.7' they are requesting increase up to 61.10',requesting a total height request of 11'l 0". In addition to the height variance, they are asking to reduce the required two parking space to one parking space, as this site is a once a month maintenance visit facility only. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Community Development Building. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero at 229-4812. Brya odine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator F:\OV\OV 10\2000\10-00-14\NOTICE.doc :(L3 Q c CD O N J. aV L> 23 Zcip o 0 7 � a M � �. O 0. g .a) z [11 4 ill) 1.5,,.. p = ...- c w ry cts 0 vs, ss. 40V • 11111k_.fi Isor se 4 4 I. P$.,' 1 e. tita, to •40kai ) \0\toy 1 I 1 r qb[i V.. . 6' ji,• ' 4:44:7 0 '' it 4 —isco30,0 ,,A, "0 I ' irW el : 1I;monI oMINIM .• o o C Dr. isoi r -.71-A---- ♦ NOP 01111011 V." . . . ._,- 1011146 rola issliti volts si 111/0011 • $ wow UIldme S��O�j. bsw A s le `1S nu r 0 as I'Os we SIN: 0 1/4? im imi 1111101110 rotaL% 4/ t ig -No moor sib--'w lip*/**. 0 Emip .4- , ot Aeosinsa OW all i 1 trei4PPP,. 1,.% ltlt t 4 aw ..'"�.'�'. 'ter'"' tr Am ii 0 1r Aa0tv4ra ki'' , t e ` ali �a0V �,*�Ab wkok ' ,l •�i►,�.�„!ice► ,'""I .." �' Sri 1_ 0 4 46 ,taikb g d uoAUeo°wld at o, 4*WM ,411011111ifil....liv 411'101104Pi 111110111111171 Alirillatillit I 111100" lel. It ..-' 1 vain A oAkil Alt MI le 1r ilir 4 et AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22, 2000 Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N. La Canada Drive CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES Approval of minutes from July 25, 2000 hearing AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR,THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER,AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. EACH PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AFTERNOON'S AGENDA WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: STAFF REPORT PETITIONER/APPLICANT PRESENTATION PUBLIC INPUT PETITIONER/APPLICANT RESPONSE AND SUMMATION PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. OV-10-00-11a AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FOR A FLAGPOLE INSTALLATION IN A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO A HEIGHT OF 50'. LOCATED AT THE VISTOSO GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 955 W. PEBBLE CREEK. 2. OV10-00-11b AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO A MAJOR COMMUNICATION FACILITY TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR A FLAGPOLE/ANTENNA TOWER FROM 62.5' TO 34.1'. LOCATED AT THE VISTOSO GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 955 W. PEBBLE CREEK DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 3. OV10-00-14 WITHDRAWN AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUESTS A HEIGHT AND PARKING SPACE VARIANCE LOCATED AT HONEYBEE RIDGE PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE ADJOURNMENT A packet of agenda materials, as listed above, is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the BOA meeting in the Town Hall Administration Building, during regular business hours. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If a disabled person planning to attend this meeting requires any special accommodations, please notify the Town Clerk at 297-2591. NOTICE TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing; however, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Board during the course of its business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Board on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda, which you are interested in addressing. Posted: LH Date: 08/18/2000 Time: 4:00 .1 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22, 2000 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: James Swan, Chairman Hayward Thresher, Vice Chairman William Adler, Member Henry Suozzi, Member ABSENT: Lyra Done, Member STAFF PRESENT: Shirley Gay, Assurance Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Dee Widero, Sr. Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech Bayer Vella, Senior Planner MINUTES A MOTION was made by Member Bill Adler and seconded by Vice Chairman Thresher to approve the minutes of July 27, 2000 with the corrections noted. Motion carried 4-0. Motion carried, 4-0. Chairman Swan moved Item 3 forward to be followed by Item 1. 3. OV10-00-14 WITHDRAWN AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUESTS A HEIGHT AND PARKING SPACE VARIANCE LOCATED AT HONEYBEE RIDGE Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector explained that a report had not been prepared because the item had been withdrawn prior to the report being written. She explained that staff has received a letter from the applicant withdrawing their request for a variance and read the following: August 21, 2000 Mr. Bryant Nodine Ms. Dee Widero Ms. Sangeeta Jain Town of OroValley 08/22/00 Minute,Board of Adjustment 2 Community Development Department 11,000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 RE: OV 10-00-14 Variance AT&T Wireless OV 08-00-06 CUP AT&T Wireless Dear Mr. Nodine, Ms. Widero and Ms. Jain: With regret, the Tyangroup on behalf of AT&T Wireless Service respectfully withdraws both the application for a variance and the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed wireless facility to be located at Honey Bee Ridge. Please accept this letter as a formal request to initiate a zoning code amendment at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled in September. In addition to the proposed site at Honey Bee Ridge, two future sites identified by AT&T Wireless within the Town of Oro Valley may also fall within open space. AT&T Wireless is anxious to do all that is required to move forward with these proposed facilities. I am hoping to schedule a meeting for Thursday, August 24th with Town representatives and the Real Estate Manager for AT&T Wireless. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you need any additional information or documentation. I look forward to finding a mutually beneficial resolution to this matter and appreciate your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Martha Kuenhold Tynangroup Project Manager, Representing AT&T Wireless Services Cc: Beth Daison, AT&T Wireless Service Jeff Weir, Town of Oro Valley Scott Stiteler, Stellar Homes Mark Lewis, LMR Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. Chairman Swan swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Martha Kuenhold, 1 East Desert Sky Club #2 stated that given the site's complexities, a code amendment would be required before moving forward with the request for a variance, therefore were withdrawing their request. Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. 08/22/00 Minute,Board of Adjustment 3 MOTION: Member Suozzi moved to ACKNOWLEDGE and WITHDRAW Item 3, AT&T Wireless PCS Services, Inc., request for a height and parking space variance located at Honeybee Ridge from the agenda. Motion SECONDED by Vice Chair Thresher. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. OV10-00-11a AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FOR A FLAGPOLE INSTALLATION IN A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO A HEIGHT OF 50'. LOCATED AT THE VISTOSO GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 955 WEST PEBBLE CREEK Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that AT&T Wireless Services has identified a need for a Personal Communications Service facility to service the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 area. Under the current zoning regulations for flagpole installation(Sec 13-304), the code states that the maximum height can not exceed 1.25 x the height of the adjacent structure. She explained that the purpose of this code requirement is to ensure that flagpoles are compatible in scale with adjacent buildings. She said that according to AT&T engineers, the minimum height necessary for the facility is 50 feet. The height of the maintenance facility is 22 feet, which would dictate a flagpole not to exceed 27.5 feet. The request is for an additional 22.5 feet in height. Ms. Widero stated that staff has received several letters opposing the request for a flagpole from citizens living in the community and one letter in support of the variance. She explained that the applicant is proposing to install a flagpole at the Golf Maintenance Facility in Neighborhood 11 and that Rancho Vistoso Partners has given their approval. Staff finding of facts: • The Golf Maintenance Facility is not greater that 22 feet in height. The zoning code allows a maximum height of 27.5 feet for the proposed flagpole, AT&T is asking for an additional 22.5 feet above the maximum allowed and 28 feet above the adjacent building. • The flagpole location is approximately 400 feet to the nearest residence. • The site location requested for variance, sits 10 feet below grade of Vistoso Highlands Drive • If this variance request is approved, the applicant will then move forward on to agenda Item#2 OV 10-00-11 b, to reduce the setback for a Major Communication Facility for an antenna application to the approved flagpole. Ms. Widero, reviewed the supplemental report for Case No. OV 10-00-11 a& OV 10-00- 11 b. She explained that the Planning staff has utilized the Rancho Vistoso (RV) Planned Area Development (PAD) and the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR). The proposed Major Communication Facility will be located in the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (RVPAD) Recreation Area/Golf Course land use designation. Since there are no guidelines specified in the RVPAD for the Recreation area/Golf Course designation, the staff utilized (as interpreted by Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning 08/22/00 Minute,Board of Adjustment 4 Administrator) RV PAD's Resort district for design guidance, as it is intended to provide for recreation and golf uses. She explained that under the permitted uses section in the Resort District, the RV PAD refers to the permitted uses in the R-4R Resort district of the OVZCR, Sec 7-203. A Major Communication facility is allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-4R district. The height restriction for a Major Communication Facility is 50 feet in R-4R zoning district. Vice Chair Thresher expressed concerns with the project being categorized as a "flagpole." He said that he considered the pole to be a cellular telephone antenna and would prefer that it be referred to as such. Chairman Swan swore in Bayer Vella, Senior Planner. Bayer Vella, Senior Planner explained that the usage proposed is for a flagpole, but is also a communications facility which is addressed in two separate sections of the Town Code and with the Town Attorney's consent, staff has taken a conservative approach. He explained that the applicant would need to address all sections of the code that pertains to the application. He stated that there was no question that the purpose for the flagpole would be to create a communications facility. Chairman Swan asked who recommended making it i.e. a flagpole rather than a communications pole. Mr. Vella replied "the petitioners, for the purpose of establishing a communications facility." Member Suozzi inquired as to why the antenna would meet the code and the flagpole would not. Mr. Vella explained that in order for the antenna to meet the Major Communication Facility Code Requirements, it has to be stealth. Meaning, it has to appear to be something it isn't to blend in. He explained that the applicant has proposed using a flagpole to store the communications device because the code has been oriented to hiding this type of facility. Member Suozzi asked if the height would be a problem if the project were classified as an antenna. Mr. Vella explained that if the project were classified as an antenna, the height would become an issue, however since the project has been identified as a flagpole there are specific code references that restrict the height of a flagpole. Chairman Swan stated that if the variance were rejected, it would be rejected for two reasons, (1) height and (2) unable to meet the stealth requirement. 08/22/00 Minute,Board of Adjustment 5 Mr. Vella explained that the issue that has been brought before the Board is strictly the height of the flagpole and that there were definitely other options that had not been explored. Chairman Swan asked if the pole would be less obtrusive and noticeable with or without a flag as it relates to the general conception of what people will see as they drive by. Mr. Vella replied "because it is higher than your average flagpole it would probably be less noticeable without the flag." Mr. Suozzi explained that the report states that this type of facility only services a geographical area of a 2 to 4 mile radius in order to be effective. He asked if this would set the precedent for more flagpoles or poles in the area if the variance were approved. Mr. Vella explained that cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He said there had not been any focus toward reviewing the accumulative impacts of the placing of poles in close proximity. He said, "staff is planning to review and revise the code regarding accumulative impacts. And in terms of the visual and aesthetic impacts, it is certainly an issue that is under the purview of the Development Review Board, who reviews both Minor and Major Communications Facilities." Member Adler explained that it was his understanding of 11 a, that the Board review the application for the flagpole not a communications facility and determine whether the flagpole by its own definition warrants a variance. He stated that he would like to hear the petitioner's justification for a variance. Chairman Swan swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Martha Kuendhold, 1 East Desert Sky Club #2 stated that this was a complicated situation and gave the following overview and reasons for the choices made regarding the site plan. • Originally, when the site was designed, it was understood that it would be reviewed as a Minor Facility. The definition of a Minor Facility would be one in which the antenna is co-located or attached to an existing structure • The flagpole is the structure to which AT&T was to attach the communications device placing it under the Stealth Communication Minor facility. This definition was challenged and the facility was redefined as a Major Communications facility, which would require rezoning or permitting it twice. First, permitting it as a Minor Communications Facility and second permitting it as a Major Communications Facility to meet both criteria. She explained that it gets very complicated to separate the two. AT&T has worked hard and long to find a suitable place to co-locate the antennas and integrate them into the surrounding area • Initially AT&T had considered co-locating the antenna, but the Resort Golf Casita's was not a willing landlord because of the requirements of ground space AT&T Wireless needed for the equipment • AT&T has received a letter of support from the adjacent property 08/22/00 Minute, Board of Adjustment 6 She said that it had been a difficult task to find a functional site for AT&T Wireless and meet the zoning requirements. Chairman Swan asked if the 50-feet height was the minimum height needed for the facility. Ms. Kuendhold replied "drop dead minimum." Member Adler stated that it seemed contradictory that an operator would be supportive of having improved service but unwilling to participate in the accomplishment. He explained that he understood the point about taking the flagpole matter in 11 a as a part of the communications requirement, however, the Board is being precluded from doing so because of the way the report had been presented. He said that the flagpole is being presented as needing a variance for a height increase because it is in violation of the portion of the Code that deals with flagpoles, therefore, it is not being presented as a Minor Communications Facility. Ms. Kuenhold stated, "it is our belief that the flagpole installation is suitable to the Golf Maintenance Facility and its surroundings. That would be my defense of having a flagpole at that particular location. It does blend in and compliments the facility. If AT&T is not successful today, the proposal could not move forward under the guide of a Major Facility and Conditional Use Permit." Chairman Swan asked if it was her understanding that the reason for the variance for the flagpole would be to meet the stealth requirement of the Code. Ms. Kuenhold replied "truthfully, I had not thought of it that way because my thinking is much more defined as minor or major. Member Suozzi asked what were the dimensions of the flag. Ms. Kuenhold replied"unfortunately I do not have the dimensions but it would be a rather large flag." Chairman Swan inquired if a variance would be necessary for stealth purposes if the request was for an antenna with the 50-foot height. Mr. Vella replied "yes." Member Suozzi expressed concerns regarding the height of the pole from a safety standpoint. Mr. Vella explained that prior to the construction the applicant has to submit structural engineering plans that would be reviewed by staff to ensure that it met all Uniform Building Codes. 08/22/00 Minute, Board of Adjustment 7 Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. Dick Maes, 945 West Vistoso Highland Drive, representing Rancho Vistoso Partners, Stone Canyon and President of Rancho Vistoso Homeowners Associations was very much in favor of the installation of the communications facility. Member Adler stated that he wanted to be sure that this matter had been researched and investigated thoroughly to find other options or alternatives for a 50-foot flagpole, and that all citizens in the area were contacted. He said, "the Board should be aware of the options whether they exist or not." Ms. Kuenhold stated that she had been in communication with The Resort Castias and if the variance were approved she would be moving forward with the Development Review Board and various other boards to provide an opportunity for their participation at a greater level. Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. Member Adler stated that he would not substitute common sense of what 11 a represents to him. He stated that he appreciated Ms. Kuenhold and Mr. Maes recommendation of moving the tower to the second location that it seemed sensible. But in his view, that was not what had been presented before the Board. Therefore, he stated he would limit his vote to the 50-foot height consideration and not to the extraneous considerations to what had been presented in 11 a. Vice Chairman Thresher expressed concerns with the combination reference of the project as a"flagpole/antenna tower" and felt the Board would be out of its jurisdiction if it were to approve the request. Member Suozzi expressed concern regarding the height and the accumulation of poles erected in the area. He added that he had not heard much discussion regarding alternatives or options. Chairman Swan asked if the applicant was requesting a variance for a flagpole because they could not meet the stealth qualifications under the normal antenna structure. Mr. Vella replied "that is correct." He explained that staff recognized the lack of these types of facilities in the Town. He reported that staff is visited frequently by communications facility providers weekly and that staff has definitely taken a conservative approach in terms of how to establish a precedent for development. Mr. Suozzi stated that it would make more sense to add to the existing poles in the area to avoid having so many different poles. Chairman Swan stated that the hardship that the petitioner was experiencing was a result of the Town Code Stealth requirements; isolating the antenna as such is impossible 08/22/00 Minute, Board of Adjustment 8 because of the auxiliary needed for the equipment to function properly, therefore the applicant request for a flagpole was reasonable. MOTION: Member Adler moved to DENY OV 10-00-1 la, finding that the variance request does not meet the criteria and that there are alternative ways that the antenna can be mounted so that a flagpole may not be necessary. Motion SECONDED by Vice Chair Thresher. Discussion: Member Suozzi agreed with Member Adler and said there may be a better alternative and agreed with the motion. Vice Chair Thresher call for the question. ROLL CALL VOTE Member Adler—aye Member Suozzi—aye Vice Chairman Thresher—aye Chairman Swan—nay Motion carried, 3-1, Chairman Swan opposed. 2. OV10-00-11b AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO A MAJOR COMMUNICATION FACILITY TO REDUCE THE SEDTBACK FOR A FLAGPOLE/ANTENNA TOW FROM 62.5 FEET TO 34.1 FEET. LOCATED AT THE VISTOSO GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 955 WEST PEBBLE CREEK DRIVE, ORO VALLEY ARIZONA 85737 Martha Kuenhold, representing AT&T requested to withdraw Item 2 from the agenda. She added that she appreciated the Board's time and obvious attention to this matter. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector had no report. Dan Dudley, Town Attorney suggested having an executive session/study session at or before the next meeting to review the legal aspects relating to certain issues that will come before the Board. Discussion: Member Adler expressed concern regarding the notice of hearing to the property owners within the 300 feet radius. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission be asked to insert a review of the public notification limits or boundaries in their work plan. 08/22/00 Minute,Board of Adjustment 9 Member Suozzi suggested that the letter of notification be made more personable. He felt that this would get the attention of the reader. Member Adler expressed concern regarding variances that did not fit the plot plan. He suggested that there be a requirement that when the developer is submitting elevations to the Development Review Board (DRB) that at least one of these elevations is certified and fit on the plan. Member Adler expressed concerns with "staff finding of facts" and asked if it was necessary to include this section in the staff report. He suggested that this be reviewed at the executive session/study session. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Adler moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Vice Chairman Thresher. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, i a Hersha, Secretary II '' . V y - iii - - v 'IC 41r JJ EE �� �6 keys " - 1 f �$. ram+m' �a *a."kl, p. ilr$ileirloc ,,01 it "‘1,,, \ ' f iF S y e s .„,,,0 II Z, r ,,,, / . ci it,..(1, . ,,, s5te.., -',..,., -).0.:10:0 i'iE)' T'*;,-Al A' ''',. . 4. i 1:11 , ak--ao itNA -#.,.„. 44,-...., 1 ..v.41., ., . .* N ' lie <7;,) - 4: 44 ':dfrist. N., +. 1 I ''' 1 1 y.: +. I WINO.to Y 3 - f x ,,,, * 'f' .., 1,., -C 1 6 %--2, ' la' * gRT1 cf 3 It{° I ra irir t '•�' / ... -'DPP""^^ S !, • „alb \ - ,..44.r """' r iv ...I L aro".'"'"'.."1410r 1 , .''..t-- ic; —..., 1 -Vie. AI ' \ , N. Li \ 91. . .may w3 ,-k..:" 91 1\ '\\\ •'s ! __1 t Ifs:' . ‘ El 'I� 33 ' a s .eak L._ /49 3EIVd IM-- 3100E1 ;;Iglit. 1 •., r wR� V4'Vwr r 4f4! f'� g \ .4.. 4:00,A Estg-'4 E - - A1000 • VilillaMM1111-1 ' imor. ..,..44 Ng yr :op wpm 1 • `�i � la\jiW 1 AssuRArc i�El � �► Mk, � � AS5klR _VC1 „,„ ,, . 10140 it4. 4,444. dmizr. :.. it -,,, Al ' fie . 40\141:k. 00 am. 1 .-: ti.T 1 .. , up aripita 441400,....dogo aro .e 1 : OK 41 M.P. PG 55 2111... . I ) ,..iit FINE ....5„,irr,,,, s i : ZOOG 0 . , . ' 1 is. to 0114'' O 1111 �` TRUST 11fJ. 4677 FT VOCLEY ZONING CM Jo .4 gab 1 : . . ' ''t� `�� s � says a�!Ot f._____��, 10;\ � �' e�"�7 r , pG 74 �I�CM!it1CT$ Apib �� � 7 +R�Sl1�t1YNCE CREDA I14 V .4 el:1))d ' BY: •••Aiiii.iiiiim, -• - OLSSURNCES IN THE HONEY N. CANYON ESTATE'S � La ROODIVall \ AC 111144110itt " �. i mitt NCI THE AMOUNT OF ex +Ib Her, fG 44 (49 dt: fa / ' � - '� � lYWr!"1 Ml1M1+tf'h r't, is‘ i 2) Permitted Uses: a) Uses listed under Medium High Density shall apply b) Multiple-family dwellings c) Others as included in Oro Valley R-6, Sect. 7-503 d) Temporary utility uses 3) Property Development Standards: a) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 2000 square feet b) Open Space: A minimum of 30% of the gross land area shall be provided in meaningful open space `? c) Density: The minimum gross land area per dwelling I unit shall be 2000 square feet d) Building Height: No building shall exceed three (3) stories in height, and the exterior height shall not exceed thirty-four (34) . e) Landscaping: Any part of the total subdivision note required for buildings, structures, loading and vehicular access, pedestrian walks, and hard surface activity areas shall be landscaped according to the Rancho Vistoso or Sun City Vistoso Design Guidelines and using the recommended plant list. ' f) Yard Setbacks: i ) Front: Twenty (20) feet. If the front yard abuts Rancho Vistoso Parkway, the setbacks must conform to standards in the Rancho Vistoso Design Guidelines ii ) Side: Five (5) feet or zero for common wall or zero lot line developments iii ) Rear: Five (5) feet g) Walls, Fences and Screening: See Rancho Vistoso or Sun City Vistoso Design Guidelines as applicable. 1 F) . RESORT DISTRICT 1 ) This district is intended to provide for a high quality resort hotel and accessory uses including tennis, swimming, golf, clubhouses, restaurants, etc. The controlled access, deep setbacks and landscaping 57 it 'F 14 requirements are intended to enhance the value, safety and aesthetic quality of the total project. 2) Permitted Uses: a) As allowed in R-4R Resort District, Sect. 7-203 0.V.Z.C.R. b) Golf or Tennis Clubhouse including bar and restaurant, golf cart storage, etc. 3) Property Development Standards: a) Minimum property size: Twenty (20) acres b) Open Space Requirements: Buildings may cover an aggregate area of thirty-three percent (33%) , excluding parking areas. c) Density: i ) The minimum gross land per guest room shall be four thousand two hundred fifty (4,250) square feet. ii ) The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit having either party walls or walled courtyards ! . made available for rent, lease, or sale shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. iii ) Total acreage required by items 1 and 2 above shall not exceed total gross land area. iv) The Town Council may regulate concentrations of r�. density by site plan approval . It d) Building Height: Buildings shall not exceed 35 feet, except that when located on slopes, maximum height may not exceed 44 feet. t'1 g r e) Distance Between Buildings: There shall not be less F; than ten (10) feet between an accessory building and a main building, or between two main buildings. f) Yard Requirements: i ) Minimum front yard of 30 feet, except adjacent to the primary entrance drive, the building r,± setback shall be 50 feet ii ) There shall be a yard a minimum of thirty (30) feet adjacent to all perimeter property lines. iii ) There shall be a yard a minimum of thirty (30) feet in depth adjacent to all perimeter streets, maintained as meaningful open space, except for pedestrian and vehicular access ways. 58 G. Parking Requirements for Residential Uses 1 ) Dwelling Units: A minimum of two on site parking spaces for each each dwelling unit shall be provided. 59 i.>. L _. 1ti y.r l i`� '/. :ems.�.F'dR4 _. __ _ _: _ _, .�-s-. .�. �_-j ''vaa.i-if.`.:�'�y'-GS .::'. --_. _ ..'.. ..- ..-.. - '