Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 2/28/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at 3:03 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bart Schannep, Chair Colleen Kessler, Vice Chair Andy Martin, Member Paul Parisi, Member EXCUSED: John Hickey, Member MOTION: A motion was made to approve the minutes of January 24, 2006. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-01: VICTOR BOLDUC, SAYLER-BROWN LARA ARCHITECTS, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 23.4 TABLE 23.2.B, TO ALLOW A 34' BUILDING HEIGHT. AT 8950 N. ORACLE ROAD (PARCEL 225-12-066C) Victor Bolduc, 1001 North Alvernon Way, explained that the request for variance was to allow for a 34 foot building height in a C-1 Zone. He reported that due to the topography, the east property line was approximately 55 feet higher than the property line along Oracle Road. He explained that due to the slope of the property, the grading of the site would place the first floor below grade so that the top of the building would be effectively 4' — 9' feet above elevation of the west property line of adjacent residences. He explained that the Zoning Code did allow 2-story buildings, with a maximum 25 feet; however, commercial buildings particularly "Class A" office buildings, require a minimum 9 foot ceiling height. In answer to a question from Vice Chair Kessler, Mr. Bolduc explained the there were two (2) reasons to construct the 2-story building. (1) To obtain the 40,000 square feet unit and; (2) The ability to add 20,000 square feet in the future, and in addition the clientele's concern of being too spread out over a larger 1 story floor plan design. There was discussion regarding: • The accuracy of sketch #SD-5.1 depicting the site. • Why was it necessary to construct a 2-story building as opposed tot-story? • What was the definition of a "Class A" office? • The 5 findings of fact as they relate to the Town Zoning Code. • Grading limitations and special circumstances. 02/28/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reported that the applicant propose to build a 60,800 square foot office building, and the structure would be a two-story flat parapet roofline building at a maximum building height of 34 feet. She explained that the OVZCR, Sec 23.4, Table 23.2.b, allowed a 25 foot maximum building height in the C-1 zone. She added that the site for the project laid approximately 600 feet north of the northeast corner of Hardy Road and on the east side of Oracle Road on approximately 6 acres. Ms. Widero reported that the building would be placed approximately in the center of the site with the majority of the parking east and to the rear, with a small portion of parking in front of the building. She reported that the applicant's intention was to meet all the setback standards such as the 100 foot buffer yard that would be left natural off of Oracle Road and a 30 foot buffer on the side and 20 foot to the rear. Ms. Widero explained that applicant has already applied for a Grading Exception, and the hearing date has been set for March 16, 2006. The request would allow the following: 1) A maximum depth-of-cut of twenty-two (22) feet exceeding the maximum of six (6) feet allowed by the ordinance. 2) A maximum depth-of-fill of twelve (12) feet also exceeding the maximum allowed six (6) feet. The proposed cuts would occur primarily along the entire east side of the site and comprise approximately one quarter of the overall site area. The cut limitations are also exceeded in a small area located near the northwest corner of the site where a detention basin is proposed. The proposed fill would occur near the center of the site. Staff provided the following comments based on an analysis of the proposal: • The proposed development complies with the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overview District (ORSCOD) buffer yard, setback, the 300 feet view corridor, and open space requirements. • The 300 foot view corridor and 18 feet height limit is met. • C-1 zoning allows 25 feet building height on remaining portion of the property. • A preliminary view shed analysis indicates that, from a pedestrian's perspective on Oracle, the proposed 34 foot building does not create a significantly greater impact than a 25 foot building. • The proposed development provides more open space than is required. • In 1997, the Board of Adjustment (BOA) approved a request for a height variance of 30 feet. The original development plans for this project have been abandoned. • The applicant is proposing an excess of 99 parking spaces in Phase I, and together with additional open space on the site, it may be possible to build one- story on the site to come into compliance with the height limit. Staff notes that there is adequate room on the site. • The variance request is the first step in the design and subsequent review of the proposed development. The development plan, landscape plan, and architecture will all be separately reviewed and are subject to modification through those processes. Discussion followed regarding: • Is it possible to develop a split-level if the 2-story portion of the building was sunken into the ground? 02/28/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes • When would phase II occur in the development? • What were the dimensional requirements for the building? • Case law as it relates to other BOA cases that have addressed similar height variances cases. Chair Schannep opened the public hearing and swore the witness that was intending to testify. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, was opposed to the request because a case had not been made in that the topography was creating the hardship. He stated that as a citizen, he felt that it was inappropriate for a BOA member to express opinions of disapproval of certain aspect of the Zoning Code, as well as to attempt to redesign the project. He also objected to the staff report introducing previous cases that were similar, because in his opinion, they were not relevant. He stated that the difficulty of being a BOA member was the discipline to avoid getting involved in things which were irrelevant to the responsibilities to the Board. In conclusion, he stated that he did not believe that the 5 Criteria had been met nor had there been any effort made to meet the requirements. Chair Schannep closed the public hearing. Victor Bolduc stated that it would be impossible to place a 60,000 square foot 1-story facility on the 6 acre site. He added that this revision would also void the parking accommodations necessary for the site. He further explained that as far as the cut and fill was concern, he was in the process of getting a grading variance for the project. Member Martin expressed concern with regard to the 5 Criteria, and he felt that 3, 4 and 5, were basically echoing the questions with no elaboration. In answer to a question from Member Martin, Mr. Bolduc explained that there had been revisions made to accommodate the neighbors to avoid obstructing their views; and the parking had been revised with parking canopies to provide low level lighting and security. Mr. Bolduc distributed documentation to the Board, which contained signatures from neighbors in the surrounding area that acknowledged their attendance of a meeting that addressed issues and answered questions that were affiliated with the project such as the height of the building, materials used, lighting, sidewalls and vegetation. He reported that a grading variance was pending and suggested that the Board make it a condition to approve the height variance only if the grading variance was accepted. MOTION: Member Parisi moved to DENY Case No. OV10-06-01, a request for variance to increase the height from the allowed 25 feet to 34 feet, for the proposed office building at 8950 North Oracle Road. Vice Chair Kessler SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Parisi stated that he did not feel the Board had the authority or jurisdiction to rule on the variance base on the evidence presented. 02/28/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes Vice Chair Kessler had concern with Finding #4 "the granting of special privileges." She explained that there were alternatives for the facility that would meet the Code and to approve the variance would be granting "special privileges" to the applicant. Chair Schannep agreed. Member Martin stated that this was a requiem of the client more so than what was being dictated by the topography. MOTION carried to deny the request, 4-0. 2. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Sara More, Planning and Zoning Administrator reported that the following items were currently under assessment: • The completion of the Annual Budget Report. • The Work Plan and the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance. • The Zoning Code. • The new hire of a Senior Planner. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kessler to ADJOURN the meeting at 3:51 p.m. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by, Aina Hersha, Office Specialist