| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John S. Gendron
Hearing Officer
DATE December 18, 2007 TIME 1:30 P.M.
Staff Present Others Present
Jeff McVay Dan Roach Roger Haywood
Brandice Elliott Patrick Tennant Heather Scantleberry
Constance Bachman Jerry Cook Adam Price
Katrina Rogers Conni McDonough Mark Heywood
CASES
Case No.: ZA07-124TC
Location: 435 North Grand
Subject: Requesting: 1) a variance to allow an accessory building to encroach into the rear setback;2) a variance to allow a fence to exceed the maximum height permitted; and 3) a Special Use Permit; both in conjunction with the development of a detached accessory living quarters in the R1-6 zoning district.
Decision: Approved with the following conditions.
1. The accessory living quarters shall not be leased or rented.
2. The accessory living quarters shall comply with all requirements of the Building Safety Division with regard to the issuance of building permits.
Summary: Roger Haywood and Adam Price represented the variance and Special Use Permit requests. Mr. Gendron discussed the request with the applicant and staff. Discussion included the setback requirements, fence construction requirements, the history of the structure, and adjacent property use. Heather Scantleberry, neighboring property owner, expressed her concern with the use of the structure for livable space. She noted past problems with residents of the property throwing rubbish onto her property and that she would be more comfortable with an 8-foot fence. Ms. Rogers provided a staff report and recommendation. Mr. Gendron noted the unique condition of an underground canal, the amount of time the use has been in place, and the historic clearance in approving the requested variances, with conditions. Mr. Gendron further noted the development would be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding properties.
Findings:
• The existence of an underground canal represents a unique condition that makes it difficult to develop an accessory living quarters in compliance with current setback requirements. The accessory living quarters has been in existence for a number of years.
• The accessory living quarters has received a historic clearance from the Mesa Historic Preservation Officer. The addition of an 8-foot wall will mitigate the impact of reduced setbacks on neighboring properties. The 8-foot wall will require building permits.
• The accessory living quarters will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding properties. Should it be found the accessory living quarters is leased or rented, the Special Use Permit can be revoked.
*****
Case No.: ZA07-133
Location: 905 West Broadway Road
Subject: Requesting a Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) to allow redevelopment of a residence into an office and construction yard in the M-1 zoning district.
Decision: Continued to the January 8, 2008 hearing.
Summary: N/A
Findings: N/A
* * * *
Case No.: ZA07-134
Location: 7165 East University Drive
Subject: Requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a Comprehensive Sign Plan in the O-S-PAD zoning district.
Decision: Approved with the following conditions.
1. Compliance with the sign plan submitted, except as modified by the conditions listed below.
2. Tenants shall be allowed a maximum of three (3) attached signs with a maximum aggregate sign area of thirty-two (32) square feet.
3. No attached signs shall be allowed on the west sides of Buildings 1-8.
4. Attached signs shall be non-illuminated or utilize halo illumination only.
5. Compliance with all requirements of the Building Safety Division with regard to the issuance of sign permits.
Summary: Patrick Tennant represented the Special Use Permit request, noting that he did not have additional information to add to the case file. Mr. Gendron discussed the request with the applicant and staff. Discussion included the development pattern, existing signage, and specific allowances per tenant. Mr. McVay provided a staff report and recommendation. Mr. Gendron agreed that the proposal was consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance provision and that the signage would be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding properties.
Findings:
• This professional office complex is zoned OS-PAD. Such zoning is intended as a transitional zoning district between less intense residential uses and more intense commercial or industrial uses. The subject development includes multiple (23), multi-tenant offices. This type of development is generally found in a C-1 or C-2 zoning district and is unique in the OS-PAD zoning district.
• The Sign Ordinance would allow a total of four signs and 128 square feet of sign area between all attached and detached signs, for the entire development. Even if the development only included one tenant per building, there would be 23 individual tenants that would need identification. The current Sign Ordinance maximums for developments in the OS district do not allow sufficient signage to identify this type of development with detached signs and individual tenant attached signage.
• The development has one, existing detached sign with an overall height of eight feet and sign area of approximately 40 square feet along University Drive and one, existing detached sign with an overall height of eight feet and sign area of approximately 21.5 square feet along Sunvalley Boulevard. Tenants would be allowed a maximum of one attached sign per elevation with a maximum aggregate sign area of 32 square feet per tenant. Attached signs would be internally illuminated or non-illuminated.
• No tenant will be allowed greater than three attached signs with an aggregate sign area 32 square. Additionally, to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties, no attached signs should be allowed on the west walls of Buildings 1-8. Attached signs will be non-illuminated or limited to halo illumination only.
* * * *
Case No.: ZA07-135
Location: 4766 East Falcon Drive
Subject: Requesting a Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) to allow redevelopment of an existing aircraft hanger and development of an aircraft hanger in the M-1 zoning district.
Decision: Approved with the following conditions.
1. Compliance with the site plan submitted except as modified by the conditions below.
2. Replacement of all dead, dying and removed landscaping.
3. Compliance with all requirements of the Building Safety Division with regard to the issuance of building permits
Summary: Dan Roach represented the SCIP request, noting that he did not have additional information to add to the case file. Mr. Gendron discussed the request with the applicant and staff. Discussion included landscaping adjacent to the street frontage, size of hanger addition, code parking requirements compared to Falcon Field Guidelines. Ms. Elliott provided a staff report and recommendation. Mr. Gendron agreed that the proposal provided substantial conformance for the specific site and the deviations allowed were necessary to allow development of the site. Mr. Gendron further noted the development would be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding properties.
• The subject site consists of an existing office building used for Falcon Aviations operations. The Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) would allow development of a 14,400sf hangar. The SCIP allows deviation from the current Code related to the setbacks adjacent to the south property line, parking lot landscape islands, on-site parking, and foundation base. With the exception of foundation base landscaping, the applicant has shown full compliance with current Code development standards in regards to the development of the new hangar, which meets setback and foundation base width requirements.
• The Federal Aviation Administration does not support the planting of any type of vegetation in or around an active runway, taxiway, taxi lane, or aircraft-parking apron due to the likelihood of potential bird strikes.
• Although this development lacks sufficient parking as required by Code, the Falcon Field Airport Design Guidelines suggest a parking ratio of 1 space/2000sf GFA for hangars. These guidelines, while not formally adopted, would reduce the number of required parking spaces by 9, which would provide some relief from current Code requirements. In addition, there is adjacent overflow parking adjacent to the development, which creates a situation similar to group commercial centers where shared parking is typical.
• Full compliance with current Code requirements would result in the removal of required on-site parking. The increased setback adjacent to Falcon Dr. would eliminate parking spaces adjacent to the street, and a foundation base would eradicate the row of parking spaces adjacent to the structure. Parking islands would further reduce the availability of on-site parking for the development.
• As increasing landscape within the development would create additional non-conformities, it is recommended that all dead, dying, and removed landscaping be replaced in order to offset the lack of landscape elsewhere on the site.
• The site plan submitted, including the conditions of approval, provides substantial conformance with current Code requirements that justify the requested SCIP. Additionally, the proposed use and improvements will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, adjacent properties in the area.
* * * *
Case No.: ZA07-136
Location: 7554 East Main Street
Subject: Requesting: 1) a Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) to allow development of a retail building; and 2) a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow modification of a Comprehensive Sign Plan in the C-2 zoning district.
Decision: Approved with the following conditions.
1. Compliance with the site plan and landscape plan submitted, except as modified by the conditions below.
2. All attached signage shall comply with current Code requirements.
3. Any sign permit for a new detached sign shall specify and require that any existing non-conforming sign shall be modified or removed to comply with Sec 11-19-2(D) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Compliance with all requirements of the Design Review Board.
5. Compliance with the landscape plan submitted including replacement of all dead, dying, or removed landscaping.
6. Compliance with all requirements of the Building Safety Division with regard to the issuance of building permits.
Summary: Jerry Cook and Conni McDonough represented the SCIP and SUP requests, noting that they did not have additional information to add to the case file. Mr. Gendron discussed the request with the applicant and staff. Discussion included the previously approved site plan, the current proposal, potential ROW dedications for a right turn lane, and the need for a comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Dmohowski provided a staff report and recommendation. Mr. Gendron agreed that the proposal provided substantial conformance for the specific site and the deviations allowed were necessary to allow development of the site. Mr. Gendron further noted the sign plan, as recommended would be consistent with current Code requirements and would be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding properties.
Findings:
• The SCIP allows the development of a 7,500sf commercial building on a vacant corner parcel within a group commercial shopping center. When Sun Valley Shopping Center was platted in 1985, the parcel was dimensioned to a size that makes development very difficult under the standards of the current Zoning Ordinance. In order to develop a commercial building of usable size, the applicant has requested a SCIP to allow relief from building setbacks as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
• The SCIP allows deviation from current Zoning Ordinance requirements related to building and landscape setbacks adjacent to Main Street and the intersection of Main Street and Sossaman Road. Code requires a 30’ building and landscape setback and a 100’ radius at the corner where adjacent to a six lane arterial. The applicant has proposed to build a 7,500sf building with a 15’ building and landscape setback along Main Street and a 29’ radius at the street corner.
• With the exception of the building and landscape setbacks and the 100-foot corner radius setback, the site meets all current Code requirements. Foundation base and landscaping meet or exceed minimum Code requirements. The landscape plan includes several trees and shrubs along the street frontages that help buffer the building from the street. In addition the existing right-of-way includes nearly 20’ of landscaping area that will provide an additional buffer between the building and Main Street.
• The existing parking lot for the entire shopping center does not comply with current Code in regards to the amount of contiguous parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires landscape islands at each end of a row of stalls and in between for a maximum of eight (8) contiguous spaces. The applicant is not modifying the parking, but will install landscaping in the existing islands to meet current Code requirements.
• The site plan provides substantial conformance with current Code requirements and provides reasonable justification for a SCIP. The planned use is compatible with, and not detrimental to surrounding properties. The architectural style and site design complies with the intent of the Design Guidelines and will increase the aesthetic quality of the shopping center and surrounding area.
• The requested Special Use Permit (SUP) would allow modifications to the existing Comprehensive Sign Plan approved for Sun Valley Plaza through case BA86-10.
• The proposed modification would allow a maximum of two (2) attached signs with an aggregate sign area of up to 250sf. Corner buildings with multiple elevations would allow a maximum of three (3) signs with an aggregate area up to 250sf. Current Code maximums would allow three attached signs with an aggregate sign area of 160sf.
• The proposed building and site plan does not provide any unique circumstances to justify a maximum sign area of 250’. As approved, the sign area will be limited to 160sf as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
• Detached signage has not been requested as part of this request. In accordance to Section 11-19-2(D) of the Zoning Ordinance, any sign permit for a detached sign within the boundaries of a group C-O-I Development shall specify and require that any nonconforming detached sign within the boundaries of said development shall be modified or removed to conform with the provisions of this Ordinance.
* * * *
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Administrator, the hearing adjourned at 02:35 p.m.
The cases for this hearing were recorded and are available upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
John Gendron
Hearing Officer
jm
G:\ZA\Minutes\2007\121807.doc