Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 1/23/2001 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 23, 2001 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 3:05 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan,Member Cindy Lewis, Member ABSENT Lyra Done, Member STAFF: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 28,2000 HEARING AND STUDY SESSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 19, 2000 MOTION: Chairman Suozzi MOVED to CONTINUE the minutes of the Special Session to the next Study Session scheduled for Friday, January 26, 2001 with the corrections noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Swan. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Member Swan MOVED to APPROVE the minutes of November 28, 2000 with the corrections noted. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. OV-10-00-16 ADDISIGNS INC. FOR LEXIMAR LLC. OF EL CONQUISTADOR EXECUTIVE PLAZA REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REMOVE THE EXISTING ENTRYWAY SIGN,LOCATED ON GREENOCK DRIVE,AND REPLACE IT WITH A SIMILAR SIGN TO BE PLACED ON THE WALL FACING ORACLE ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EL CONQUISTADOR EXECUTIVE PLAZA PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 10195 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that Addisigns Inc. was requesting that El Conquistador Plaza be allowed to relocate one 1/23/01 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 MINUTES existing entryway sign. She reported that the proposed sign would look similar to the existing sign, but would aid the traffic flow to the south entrance rather than down Greenock Road. She explained that the owner feels that removing the existing entryway sign from Greenock Drive and relocating one at the corner of Greenock Drive and Oracle Road,would greatly improve the safety for the surrounding residential community by reducing the flow of traffic on Greenock Drive. She explained that the Zoning Code (OVZCR Sec. 12.502.B.7) allows only one sign per street frontage. Section 12-502.B.4 of the Zoning Code states that a setback should be a minimum of 5' from property line. The existing wall is only 1.8" from property the line. Ms. Widero reported that all property owners within 300 feet of this property have been notified of the hearing and the property has been posted with a Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing has been advertised in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. She reported that staff had received a letter from Laurie Starr, a resident living in the Oro Valley • Townhomes, that was in favor of the signage relocation. Ms. Widero reported that the right-of-way width of Oracle Road in the area is 300 feet. She explained that from the centerline of Oracle Road to the existing south entrance is approximately 190 feet; The entry sign currently located in the area sits approximately 156 feet from the centerline of Oracle Road. She said that the proposed sign would sit approximately 153 feet from the centerline of Oracle Road. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing entryway sign on Greenock Drive and placing the entryway sign with an arrow directing to the south entrance of the corner of Greenock Drive and Oracle Road. She said that this would direct the access onto El Conquistador Executive Plaza property at the south entrance off of Oracle Road, north next to the Clare Bridge facility. The following finding of facts exist: • Because the topography is below level grade, special conditions do exist • The owner or applicant did not create the condition • Granting the variance would allow the general public to enter the offices more safely • A variance to increase the height of Clare Bridge sign (next to the property to the south)was granted in 1999 • The adjustment would not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the vicinity • The authorizing of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the people residing in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood or to the public welfare in general In conclusion, she explained that by granting the variance, it would help direct traffic from the residential neighborhood. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the Code indicates there should only be one sign per frontage road. He explained that if the current sign were relocated from Greenock Drive to the proposed corner, it would be on Oracle Road as well as the main entry sign. This would place two signs on Oracle Road making it a violation of the Zoning Code. 1/23/01 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 MINUTES Member Swan asked if the remaining sign was fronting Greenock Road or Oracle Road. Ms. Widero explained that the current sign was facing Oracle Road. Member Lewis asked in which direction would the proposed sign face. Ms. Widero replied, "I believe it will be facing more to the north". Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mark Hanes, representing Addisgins Inc., explained that the company was not interested in producing another sign; increasing the square footage or exposure,but to re-locate the exact style of sign on Greenock Drive closer to Oracle Road. He explained that the location of the sign would specifically be used for directing traffic. He proceeded to distribute and review 10 photographs reflecting the different vantagepoints of the current sign located the on site. In conclusion, he stated that the true intent was the safety of the community. Vice Chairman Adler explained that signs are specifically used to provide proper identification, and as far as getting information to the public relating to the business, it would be considered an advertising issue. He said that the request for variance in his opinion had nothing to do with traffic,but perceived the variance request as an attempt to improve advertising. Mr. Hanes explained that the company's goal was not to gain exposure,but taking responsibility and overseeing community safety. Chairman Suozzi suggested the applicant place a sign on the building located on Oracle Road to make it more visible. Mr. Hanes explained that the company had taken the idea into consideration,but there were limitations with the square footage and maintaining the Code requirements. He added that a sign could be placed on the building, but because of the Zoning Code, limitations would forfeit any potential exposure to the tenant. Member Lewis stated that relocating the sign was not going to make much of a difference. She suggested repositioning and changing the orientation of the sign located on Oracle Road by making it double-sided. Member Swan asked if the proposed new location would be fronting on Greenock Drive or Oracle Road. Mr. Hanes replied, "clearly on Greenock". 1/23/01 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 MINUTES Member Swan reference a section of the staff report that referenced a section of the Zoning Code (Sec. 12.502.B.7)which allowed only one sign per street frontage. He asked if the Board was addressing a variance for more than one sign on a thoroughfare. Ms. Widero stated that she felt that the Board could address the issue,but that the applicant had clearly stated that he was not interested in addressing the issue at this time in their request for a variance. Member San asked if the Board was clear to the fact that the applicant was not asking for or needed a variance, as it relates to two signs being placed on the same frontage road. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the map clearly reflects that the purpose of the sign on Greenock Road and Oracle Road would be to direct the public to the entrance on Oracle Road and that the sign must visible. Member Swan asked if the proposed sign location was within the Greenock Drive right- of-way or the Oracle Road right-of-way. Ms. Widero replied, "both". She explained that the way the applicant has presented their case on the map, it appeared that there would be two signs positioned on Oracle Road. Member Swan stated that the site plan was not as detailed as it should have been and that he had difficulty determining where Oracle Road was exactly located on the map. He said, "the Board needs to determine whether or not the request for variance would be for two signs on the same frontage." Chairman Suozzi agreed. Member Swan referenced the Zoning Code (Sec-502.B.4)that indicates that the setback should be a minimum of 5 feet form the property line. He asked if the wall was violating any existing encroachment at the present time. Ms. Widero replied, "no". Member Swan reference photograph number#1 (the photo reflects a bush in front of the sign located on Oracle Road) and suggested that the applicant remove the bush. He asked if the bush was on the applicant's property. Mr. Hanes informed the Board that the property owner of the El Conquistador complex was present to answer any questions the Board may have regarding the site. Chairman Suozzi opened the Public Hearing Migal Gadea, 10195 North Oracle Road, Suite 101, clarified that the bushes were on the neighboring property. He added that if it were possible,he would remove the bush located in front of the sign on Oracle Road. 1/23/01 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 5 MINUTES Member Swan suggested that the applicant speak with the neighbors regarding the possibility of removing the bush. Chairman Suozzi closed the Public Hearing. Member Swan asked for confirmation that the Board was only addressing the variance for the setback. Ms. Widero explained that when the report was written, she felt that the applicant was asking for a variance for the setback and for two signs off of Oracle Road rather than one. Member Swan asked if there was language in the applicant's request for variance addressing both issues. Ms. Widero replied, "no, they didn't actually address the setback issue". She added that the applicant had simply asked to relocate the sign located on Greenock Drive. Member Swan stated the Board should address what was applicable. He asked if both issues were applicable. Ms. Widero replied, "yes". Craig Civalier, Development Review Division Manager, explained that the sign currently sits on a curb, leaving one side of the sign facing Oracle Road and the other side facing Greenock Drive. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the applicant's intent in requesting the variance would be to help people traveling along Oracle Road to get to the main entrance. He said that in his opinion, a portion of the request was for two signs on the same frontage. Member Swan agreed. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler MOVED to DENY Case No. OV 10-00-16, finding that the special conditions on the property allow adequate identification without a variance, and that the preservation of substantial property rights are preserved. Motion SECONDED by Member Swan. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi - Aye Vice Chairman Adler—Aye Member Lewis—Aye Member Swan—Aye Motion carried to DENY the request for variance regarding Case NO. OV 10-00-16, 4-0. 1/23/01 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 6 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Craig Civalier, Development Review Division Manager, reported the following: • Staff is currently reviewing the Ritz Carlton Development Plan located in Stone Canyon • Staff is also reviewing the Development Plan for Stone Canyon 6, which is adjacent to the Ritz Carlton Development • Staff is working on the rezoning of two commercial properties located on Oracle Road and Hardy Road Dan Dudley, Town Attorney reported that staff was expecting a decision form the Court of Appeals regarding the Tortilita and Cases Adobes Case within the next 20 days. Chairman Suozzi announced that the next Study Session meeting was scheduled for January 26, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:31 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Member Swan. Respectfully submitted, AAW s /f d inda Hersha, Secretary II