Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 3/26/2002 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 26,2002 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chairman Bill Adler,Vice Chairman Lyra Done,Member Bart Schannep ,Member Henry Suozzi,Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Andrews,Civil Attorney Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Mike Valencic,Zoning Inspector MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the regular session minutes of January 22, 2002 with the correction noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Suozzi.Motion carried, 5- 0. 1. CASE NO. OV10-02-02 BILL FIELDS FROM TERRITORIAL SIGN COMPANY FOR NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PLACE A SECOND ENTRANCE INDENTIFICATION SIGN OFF OF ORACLE ROAD. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 13101 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Chair Lewis swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Bill Fields explained that the Northwest Medical Center located at 13101 North Oracle Road was an emergency care facility.He said that time and safety to the facility was critical in order to accommodate the public. He explained that by placing a sign at the southern entrance,near the median cut,northbound traffic could enter the facility safely. Therefore,he was requesting that a type P-4 sign be placed at the southern entrance of the complex. Vice Chairman Adler stated that using the entrance to the Basha's Shopping Center would be a more suitable alternative. He stated that the idea of encouraging citizens turning left into the oncoming traffic to reach the medical facility would not be something that he would encourage. He pointed out that the visibility of the sign was not an issue once the deceleration lane was accessed. Member Suozzi recommended that the vegetation be trimmed or removed to improve the appearance of the area and increase visibility. 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment Mr.Fields stated that the area was considered to be a buffer zone and in accordance to the Town Zoning Code,the vegetation could not be removed. Vice Chairman Adler recommended that if the P.A.D. allowed, a sign could be positioned on Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and used as an alternate route. Member Suozzi suggested adding a directional sign,with a logo,to the existing sign in the Basha's Shopping Center. He stated that this would eliminate having so many signs. Ms.Widero explained that the billboard in the Basha's Shopping Center was a separate development. Therefore,the Northwest Medical Center would not be allowed to place their sign in the Bashas Shopping Center. Ms.Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. She explained that the Northwest Medical Center,was requesting a variance to locate a second entrance identification sign at the south entrance of the facility. She said the request was for the following reasons: 1. The north entrance,where the existing sign is located,has a lack of visibility due to the setback and landscape requirements. 2. Vegetation on the west side of Oracle Road in the natural buffer area,makes it difficult for northbound traffic to view the sign across the median. 3. There is a median cut at the rear entrance of Bashas and into Northwest Medical Center. At the north entrance to the Medical Center,you must pass the facility,then u-turn in order to enter the Medical Center. 4. To reduce delayed response time in emergency situations. She reported that all formal notification had been completed. She said that at the time of the report preparation, staff had not received any comments in support or in opposition to this request. Ms.Widero explained that there was a 100 foot natural area established by the Rancho Vistoso P.A.D., as a buffer from Oracle Road to the site development. She explained that the applicant was proposing to keep the existing sign to the main entry and place a second sign directly south at the rear entry to Basha's. Staff finding of facts: • Special circumstances were created by the 100 foot setback and the type of use being an emergency care facility. • The authorizing of the variance would improve visibility and safety to the citizens or patients of the care facility. • If the variance is granted,the applicant would need to apply to the Development Review Board for the sign approval and placement. • The Rancho Vistoso Partners and Lewis Management have reviewed and approved the proposed plan. • The request is for a P-4 sign,had the request been for a P-5 sign,a variance would not have been necessary. Member Suozzi asked what the regulated height requirements were for the sign and what would be the difference between a P-4 sign privilege and a P-5 sign privilege. 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment Mr.Nodine explained that a P-4 signage allows 40 square feet per site with a maximum height of 8 feet.The P-5 signage allows a maximum height of 6 feet. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Mr.Fields explained that the company could have used the P-5 signage,but because of the distance across the median it would not provide adequate visibility. Chairman Lewis inquired if the applicant had considered moving the larger sign to the southern entrance of the complex and placing a smaller double-sided sign at the north entrance. Mr. Fields explained that the idea had been discussed,but felt that by placing the sign at the southern end of the complex would not solve the problem because of the vegetation that exists in the natural buffer area. Member Suozzi recommended relocating the sign to the center of the property with directional signs in the driveway for the traffic flow. Mr. Field agreed but felt that this would not eliminate traffic from crossing the median. Mr.Nodine clarified that the signs were set up per the Town Zoning Code. He explained that to place the sign in a central location would require a variance. He reported that the current sign would ultimately represent the entire center as it is developed. He explained that some trimming could be done to the natural buffer on the southern side of the complex,but the idea was to keep the area looking as natural as possible versus a landscaped looking area. Chairman Lewis asked if there had been any plans to make another left hand turn lane off of Oracle Road to access the facility. Mr.Nodine replied,"no." Member stated that in an emergency situation,the area was not identified very well.He explained that for those citizens who may be in a frantic mode,making a u-turn into traffic along Oracle Road could be hazardous.He explained that for those traveling north on Oracle Road,the sign could be the solution to the problem. Chairman Lewis agreed. Chairman Lewis expressed concern with placing another large sign at the opposite end of the complex,but felt that this was definitely a safety issue that needed to be resolved. Member Done agreed. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he did not support the request for variance because the applicant had another alternative as to the type of sign that was permitted under the Planned Area Development Plan(P.A.D.)therefore,the applicant would not need a variance. He explained that he would be in favor of a smaller sign rather than a larger sign,which would encourage people to make unsafe turns. He explained that he did not want to encourage citizens to turn across 3 lanes of traffic,particularly if they are in an agitated frame of mind.He stated that he had strong feelings about encouraging people to turn left without any protective signalization when travelers are driving 60 miles per hour. He said the applicant could place an identification sign at the 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment location without the Board's approval and should do so. Therefore,he would not support placing a larger sign in the area that would encourage people to make an unsafe turn. MOTION: Member moved to approve Case No. OV 10-02-02, a request to place a second entry way sign at the south entrance of the Northwest Medical Center. Member Done seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Lewis—aye Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member —aye Member Done—aye Member Suozzi—nay Motion carried,3-2,Vice Chairman Adler and Member Suozzi opposed. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The following recommendations were submitted for the following items: 1. Should each Board/Commission adopt their own Policies and Procedures(using the Mayor and Council Policies&Procedures as a guide)? Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler explained that he was familiar with the mayor and council policies and procedures and did not support them. Therefore,he could not support other boards and commissions adopting policies and procedures based on something that he did not support. He said"all I can speak to is what the Board of Adjustment did and I support what we did and are continuing to do. To approve and adopt our own policies and procedures based upon our unique set of responsibilities." VERBATUM MOTION: A motion was made by Member Done that the Board of Adjustment has adopted their own policies and procedures based upon the requirements of the Board of Adjustment and should continue to approve their own policies and procedures based upon their unique set of responsibilities.Member Suozzi seconded the motion. 2. Should the Town adopt term limits for Board/Commission members? Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler stated that if there was an abundance of volunteer applicants that are looking for opportunities to serve on boards and commissions,then the only way to guarantee that the people would have an opportunity to serve is to have term limits. He stated that he supported term limits and believed that the limits should be six years with three,two year terms. He stated that a maximum of six years would give the incumbent plenty of opportunity to make a difference. Member Suozzi agreed that a three,two year term would be a sufficient amount of time for an individual to serve on a board or commission. He felt that this would give the individual an adequate amount of time to become familiar and experienced with the board or commission they were serving. 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment Member Done suggested the term limit be six years maximum. VERBATUM MOTION: A motion was made by Member Suozzi that the Town should adopt a term limit of six years with three,two year terms for a maximum of six years. Member Done seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. Does your Board/Commission have recommendations for qualifications needed by applicants in order to be appointed? Discussion: Member Done reported that she had been appointed to a new commission this year, and to her surprise,there were members that were not very knowledgeable. She felt that volunteers that serve on a board or commission should have the education and be familiar with issues that pertain to the Town. Member Suozzi agreed and added that it was very important that the applicant has some familiarity with the issues and some volunteer experience. Member suggested that each board should outline specific questions, such as; how long will you be in Oro Valley, and what experience the applicant has had,whether it is judicial or semi- judicial experience. Vice Chairman Adler reported that the volunteer application form had been updated and an Oro Valley Board and Commission job description had been attached to the application. He added that he supported the following two questions that were currently being reviewed for consideration to be added to the application. • How does your previous volunteer service prepare you for a board or commission appointment for which you have applied? • Please describe an issue considered at a meeting of the board or commission for which you are applying. He explained that these questions would determine the level of familiarity and knowledge the applicant might have of the process for which they are applying. Vice Chairman Adler stated that in his view it is highly desirable that an applicant have a strong volunteer record with attendance and public testimony before the board to which they are applying. He explained that if the applicant is appointed that they would have an acquaintance with the procedures of the board for which they are applying; and are acquainted with the issues that are coming before the board for which they are applying; and has demonstrated interest by testifying on an issue or two before that board. Chairman Lewis felt that this would be narrowing the pool of applicants if the qualifications were made so restrictive that the applicant was required to sit through numerous Town Council meetings or testify before a particular board regarding an issue. She stated that she would be very leery of making the requirements so restrictive,because it might drive away qualified individuals who were interested in making a difference and being a part of the Town. She explained that because someone hasn't been before the Board of Adjustment did not mean they would not be qualified to learn and be a contributing member. She stated that it would be a disservice to the Town to make such a requirement and would change the scope to the point of driving away interested citizens of the community. 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment VERBATUM MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Adler that the recommendations of qualifications should be a person that has a strong local volunteer record that is consistent with the requirements of the board or commission to which they are applying. Member Done seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Suozzi felt that the following attributes would be beneficial: • The selection of people should be based on qualifications. • The potential applicant should know the required qualifications. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 4. Do Board Members have any additional suggestions for the interview process? The Board made the following suggestions: A. A council liaison should be involved with the board or commission;when making a recommendation to his cohorts on the Council with regard to an applicant who is applying,the liaison should have personal knowledge of the issues and procedures as it pertains to a board or commission. B. The interview panel should be no less than three individuals.The interview process for board/commission members should be conducted by the following 3 individuals: > Council Liaison > Key staff member ➢ A former member of the board or commission C. During the course of someone's term an evaluation of their performance is conducted and that the evaluation should become a part of the interviewing process, should they reapply. VERBATUM MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Adler that the interviewing panel be a minimum of 3 individuals consisting preferably of the council liaison, key staff member and a former board/commission member. Further, that each board or commission member, during the course of their term, be evaluated consistent with the adopted polices and procedures of that board or commission; and that evaluation of their performance be made available during the interviewing process, should that board or commission member apply for reappointment. Member Done seconded the motion. AMENDMENT: Member Done recommended that the language "confidential evaluation" be included in the motion so that the individual understands that any evaluation information made available is a confidential document and is contained within the department in charge. Discussion: Chairman Lewis asked staff if this would be considered public information. Joseph Andrews, Civil Attorney, stated that it may well fall under public information. But, he would do some research regarding the matter and report back to the board. Member Suozzi expressed concern with a former member of a board or commission being on the panel. He felt that a former member would not be knowledgeable of any new procedures or changes, therefore how could a former member evaluate whether the individual is the best qualified person. He also had reservation regarding the council liaison and possible "conflict of interest." 03/26/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment Chairman Lewis suggested that the motion be amended to say, "that former board or commission members if feasible,reasonable or if available." Member Done seconded the motion. The motion with the amendment carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. FOR CONSIDERATION A STUDY SESSION DATE TO BE SCHEDULED AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE BOARD MEMBER AND STAFF. MOTION: Member Done moved that a Special Session meeting be held on April 12, 2002, beginning at 2:00 p.m.Member seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 4. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator reported on the following projects: • The Parking and Lighting Code has been approved by Council. • The Landscape Code will go before Council on May 1St,2002. • The Commercial Code and the Assurance Code will go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 2,2002 • The General Plan Focus Group meetings are complete and the results will be used developing the map alternatives and goal and polices text. He added that an open house would be held to present the information to the public. • The Planning and Zoning Commission is currently reviewing an area for annexation between Rams Canyon and the Honeywell site. Discussion followed concerning waivers submitted by an applicant to the Town staff and the administrative decisions handed down by staff with regards to a request for variance. It was decided that the issue would be placed on the special session meeting agenda for discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Res•-ctfully submitted • i incl. ersha, Secre ary II