Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 7/27/2004 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2004 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALLTO ORDER at 3:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Bart Schannep, Chair Bill Adler, Vice Chair Colleen Kessler, Member Matt Adamson, Member EXCUSED: John Hickey, Member MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Adler moved to APPROVE the minutes of April 27, 2004 as presented. Member Kessler SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice Chair Adler reported that he had briefly spoken with Mark Lewis, the Association Manager for the Foothills Business Park,by telephone prior to him filing the application for a variance to the Board of Adjustment. He explained that the conversation was directed towards procedural matters, so he did not see any conflict or impropriety on his part that would compromise his ability to be impartial to this case. 1. CASE NO. OV10-04-03 MARK LEWIS (LEWIS MANAGEMENT), 180 WEST MAGEE ROAD, SUITE #134, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85704, REPRESENTING FOOTHILLS BUSINESS PARK INC., ORO VALLEY ARIZONA 85737, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO INCREASE A FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE AND NUMBER OF ALLOWED TENANT PANELS. SUBJECT PROPERTY (PARCEL #220-10-020B) FOOTHILLS BUSINESS PARK, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737. Chair Schannep swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mark Lewis, Association Manager for the Foothills Business Park, Inc., explained that the owners desired to replace an existing freestanding sign at the entrance to the business park, with a modified freestanding sign allowing a safer and more effective sign. He explained that the Association was not certain if they were asking for one (1) or two (2) variances for the following reasons: • Town Code only allowed for a 50 foot sign and the modification of the existing monument would total 55 square feet. 07/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Meeting • If the Town decided the monument was part of the sign, the applicant would need to seek a variance for the size of the sign. • A second variance would be necessary to allow 10 sign panels as opposed to the 6 permitted under the Zoning Code. Vice Chair Adler referenced the term "Anchor Tenants" in the Town Zoning Code and its description of a freestanding sign and tenant uses. He explained that even though the Sign Code was not explicit in differentiating between a retail center and a business park, it seemed clear to him that the intent of a freestanding sign in the Code was intended to be applied to a retail center. He explained that the term "anchor" suggests that a store or stores will attract volumes of traffic to the center; therefore, this would not apply to a business park. In response to questions from Vice Chair Adler, Mr. Lewis agreed that there was nothing in the Sign Code that specifically implied that this was the right approach, but he felt there was nothing in the code description that identified other alternatives. He explained that as far as the substantial property rights were concerned, the tenant identification information was necessary to assist the public to effectively display the number of businesses within the business park and also direct traffic flow to allow people to get in and out of the complex safely. He explained that the Association was not attempting to use the sign for advertising but to identify the Business Park and tenants in a more effective and efficient manner. Chair Schannep suggested dismantling the existing monument and erecting a sign that would fit within the Sign Code. Mr. Lewis explained that the complex was currently known as a business park and the combination of advertising as a business park and showing what the particular businesses were within the complex was the magic formula. He explained that without the "Foothills Business Park"identification, the sign would not have sufficient explanation or identification. He added that the expense to deconstruct the monument would be costly and pointed out that he was unsure who owned the monument. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reported that the Town did have a lease agreement for the sign with the owners and the applicant did have the right to keep the sign. Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting a variance to the allowed square footage and number of tenant panels for a freestanding sign per the Oro Valley Sign Code (OVZCR) Chapter 12, Section 5 F. She reported that the current code allows for a 50 square foot sign with six tenant panels and the applicant was requesting an 88 square foot sign with 10 tenant panels. She explained that the existing sign was 5 feet and 6 inches in height and 10 feet in width, a total 55 square feet. She said the proposed plan would keep the existing base unchanged. The variance request was to increase the double faced cabinet 6 feet in height to 8 feet in width, totaling 48 square feet and the enlarged cabinet would provide a maximum of 10 tenant panels. 07/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Meeting Vice Chair Adler suggested installing a freestanding sign that only displayed the company name located at the entrance to the commercial complex opposite the monument sign. He stated that this would be within the Sign Code requirements and would not require a variance. He said that the freestanding sign could have the tenants name etched into the face of it and the illumination of that sign would be determined by Development Review Board. He explained that the sign would still require a variance to the number of tenant names,but not to the overall size. He stated that he would object to a larger size sign because this was an alternative that was allowed by Code. He commented that the sign code allows both a monument sign and a freestanding sign at a single location. Allowing one does not preclude the approval of the second. He stated that the sign code makes it clear the difference between the two signs is principally that a monument sign is for identification of the project, and the free standing sign is for tenant identification. Chair Schannep opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Richard Lukso, 5610 Via Arbolada, stated that the sign would provide the Arizona Storage facility and Tri-Cities with better advertising and it would address some of the safety issues surrounding the area, as well as provide directional assistance into the park. Nancy Wood, 10880 North Mavinee Drive, stated the sign would provide better identification and would be aesthetically pleasing and provide adequate direction within the park. Mark Lewis asked for clarification as to whether or not the applicant was asking for one (1) variance or two (2). He explained that the Association was definitely looking to increase the number of panels for the sign from six to ten. He explained that this was a very unique set of circumstances that couldn't conceivably be repeated because the Town Zoning Code had been updated to require that all future developments have a master sign package plan that reveal all of the issues up front. Chair Schannep closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Adler stated that he was not convinced that the tenant identification on the business park was imperative, but was prepared to make an exception to the Code as far as the number of tenants identification was concerned, but not to the overall size. He reiterated that his remedy would be to erect a separate sign for identification of the businesses only and the applicant would work out with the Development Review Board the location, illumination and positioning of the size. Member Kessler expressed concern with taking the sign off the monument all together because the monument was situated so close to the ground that it might not be easily seen by the public. 07/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Meeting Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney reported that there was nothing in the Zoning Code that precludes a business commercial area from having a monument sign and a freestanding sign. He added that there was nothing that prohibits the freestanding sign from being coupled with the monument sign. He explained that it was an entirely reasonable interpretation for the square footage to apply to the signage and not the monument. Vice Chair Adler stated that coupling the freestanding sign and the monument sign that to combine the two (2) the entire project would become a single sign that would exceed the total area allowed in the code in his opinion. Mr. Langlitz disagreed and stated that in the opinion of the Town Attorney it did not. He explained that it was two (2) distinct signs and there was no problem with the signage being mounted on the monument sign and did not make the entire signage exceed the requirements. He explained that as long as the signage itself was within the 50 square feet a variance was not necessary. Chair Schannep stated that he would accept the Town Attorney's interpretation and should assumed as a Board that the sign mounted to the monument does not create a gigantic sign,but in fact is acceptable as two (2)units attached. So,he said the question was the acceptance often (10)panels versus six (6)panels. MOTION: Vice Chair Adler moved to APPROVE a variance to allow the number of tenants from six (6)to ten (10) only, subject to Development Review Board approval of the design, and subject to the total area of the sign not exceeding code requirements. Member Kessler SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Kessler thought that this was the correct way of looking at the sign because the monument alone without the sign would hardly be seen and vise versa. She stated that for the convenience of the public and to identify the businesses,the combination of the two (2) signs was the appropriate thing to do for identification and as a directory for each business. ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Schannep— aye Vice Chair Adler—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Adamson— aye Motion carried, 4-0. 2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES Chair Schannep explained that a year ago the Board decided to try a rotating chair and vice chair to give each member the opportunity to serve as chair and vice chair. He 07/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 Regular Meeting reported that the term for the rotation has expired and the Board needed to determine whether or not to keep the procedure in place. He opened the floor for discussion. Chair Schannep stated that it was definitely a good experience and hoped the Board would continue with this procedure. Member Adamson stated that he would be in favor of continuing the rotating chair policy. Member Kessler agreed that it was a good policy and a wonderful experience and felt there was no reason why it should be limited to one (1)person for the entire year. Vice Chair Adler stated that he was in favor of the rotation and the procedure has been incorporated in the summary of rules and procedures for adoption. MOTION: Member Kessler moved to continue the rotation for chair and vice chair for another year. Member Adamson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice Chair Adler stated that he was not comfortable in precluding Member Hickey's participation in the review of the rules and procedures. He added that he was not sure if Member Adamson had an opportunity to review all of the information provided to him. Therefore, he suggested waiting until all of the Board members were present. Bryant Nodine, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, agreed and recommended that the Board table this item for review at next month's meeting. MOTION: Vice Chair Adler directed staff to place this item on the next regularly schedule meeting so that there will be a full Board in attendance. He added that if there was not a regular scheduled meeting, a meeting should be held no later than September, and if there was no scheduled hearing, a special session should be called to handle this matter. Motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Member Kessler moved to TABLE the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures review for the August meeting. Member Adamson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave a brief status report of upcoming work plans and projects. Work Plans: • Commercial Code update. • The General Plan update. • Letter of notification for development projects. • The review procedures for the Development Review Board. • The Environmental Land Ordinance. 07/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 6 Regular Meeting Commercial Projects: • Steam Pump Ranch. • Steam Pump Village. • Oracle Crossing development. • Vestar Project. • Ritz Carlton. • Naranja Town Site. ADJOURNMENT Chair Schannep adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 111/ Li da Hersha, Secretary II