Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 8/22/2000 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 OV10-00-14 WITHDRAWN AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC.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RIDGE Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector explained that a report had not been prepared because the item had been withdrawn prior to the report being written.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. OV 10-00-11 a 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. OV10-00-1 la& OV10-00- 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 10-00-11 a, 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. Res•ectfully submitted, i._i C14- in:a Hersha, Secretary II