Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-06 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA DECEMBER 6, 1982 7:00 P.M. Present Absent Mr. Burfiend Ms. Dunlop Mrs. Luddy Mr. Morrison Mr. Vaughn, Vice Chairman Mr. Jessamine, Chairman Mr. Gero, Executive Secretary Mr. Frazier, Staff Mrs. Samuelson, Recording Secretary Mr. Berry Guests Wayne Sellon Gina Sellon Sterling Hardwick Sharon Hardwick Mikki Frazier Rory Kelley Kermit Bressner Norman Davis Anna Embree Roy Embree George Luddy Norma Corsi Mae Goff Synopsis Minutes approval - November 1 and November 8, 1982. BA -11-82 (McDonald's) - denied. BA -4-81 (Corsi) - approved. BA -5-82 (Southard) - Allowed to expire. BA -13-82 (Hardwick) - approved. Meeting date changed to second Monday of the month with fourth Monday reserved for special meetings with .a work session at 6:30 p.m., beginning in January, 1983. Dicussion of Zoning Ordinance Provisions Dealing with Board of Adjustment - postponed until January meeting. 1.Chairman 2.Mrs. Samuelson 3.Chairman 4.Luddy/Dunlop 5.Chairman 6.Luddy/Burfiend 7.Chairman 8.Mr. Gero called the meeting to order and asked the recording secretary to call the roll. called the roll determining that six (6) members were present, with Mr. Berry being absent. asked for a motion to approve the minutes dated November 1, 1982. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the Minutes dated November 1, 1982 be approved as written." The motion passed unanimously (6-0). asked for a motion to approve the minutes dated November 8, 1982. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the Minutes dated November 8, 1982, be approved as written." The motion passed unanimously (6-0). noted that the first item for public hearing was BA -11-82 (McDonald's) which was approved at the November 1, 1982 meeting and reconsidered at the November 8, 1982 meeting.This is a new public hearing.He then asked staff to brief the Board. briefed the Board on this case stating that this was a new public hearing on the case.He stated that McCullough/Zuniga & Co. had written power of attorney from McDonald's to act in their behalf.He BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982. PAGE TWO 9.Chairman 10.Rory Kelley 11.Mrs. Luddy 12.Mr. Kelley 13.Mrs. Luddy 14.Mr. Kelley IS.Mrs. Luddy 16.Mr. Kelley 17.Mrs. Luddy gave the specifications required and gave the Board the information on the variance and showed a slide of the general sign construction.He asked that the applicant make his presentation before making any recommendation. called Mr. Kelley of McCullough/Zuniga & Co. to speak on behalf of McDonald's. stated he was representing McCullough and that he could not understand the City Attorney's letter stating that the action the Board of Adjustment had taken on November 1, 1982 was "illegal."To highlight his case he said that part of the hardship he was trying to show was that with the vast amount of traffic on U.S. 60, the bigger the sign was, the better for business, therefore, the closer to the highway, the better; that they wanted to exercise property rights to maximize dollars; and any variance would cause a hardship in dollars lost by people not being able to readily see the sign,He further stated that the structure would conform to all City require- ments and building codes, and that it would not create a hardship on the surround- ing neighborhood.He was once more request- ing a variance for a 5' setback for the sign, the said 5' would be the outer edge of the sign. noted that in previous testimony the height of the sign was based on the speed of traffic on Highway 60 at 55 m.p.h. Since the speed limit had been decreased to 40 m.p.h., how does the applicant justify McDonald's original policy on heights of signs. answered that the sign is there for a reason and they try to,catch people''s attention from a distance. stated that in some areas, such as Flagstaff, no one sees just one sign out of the masses of signs. replied that the Board andCity was passe. That most of the signs Mrs. Luddy referred to were put up in the late 1950's and 1960's when there was no control. noticed that some signs were more object- ionable than others and that people have to be attracted on the freeway, not in the city. spoke of generating business in terms of dollars and the need for signs in various locations. told him that the McDonald's sign is objectionable to her and she would like to see it scaled down, and if people like the franchise they will find it, with or without a sign. BOARD'OF:ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE THREE 18.Mr. Kelley 19.Chairman 20.Mr. Frazier 21.Mr. Kelley 22.Mr. Morrison 23.Mr. Kelley 24.Chairman 25.Mr. :Gero 26.Chairman 27.Mr. Gero disagreed with Mrs. Luddy's premise that everyone would know where the franchise was.He then spoke of a franchise in Mesa that has no sign and the poor business that is done at this franchise which they attribute to the lack of a sign. requested that staff put the slide back on for further study. responded that on the slide the setback is from the leading edge, or edge closest to the right-of-way. stated that if the variance is approved the sign would be fifteen (15') feet from the right-of-way at center line. asked if the sign was to be located one (1') foot from right-of-way. answered that the requested variance would allow the leading edge to be five (5') feet from the property line. asked if the sign could be moved back ten (10') feet. discussed with the Board that this is not the question.It was not a matter of whether the sign is attractive or unattractive, or whether it should be moved to ten (10') feet of the right- of-way.He stated ehat Section 2504 of Zoning Ordinance has three (3) sets of criteria to be met and the Board had to determine if these criteria were met or not as per the requested variance. He futher stated that the three (3) criteria are: 1)special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property referred to in the application which do not prevail on other property in the zone, 2)strict application of the regu- lations would work an unnecessary hardship and that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial existing property right, and, 3)granting of such application will not materially affect health or safety of persons reaiding or working in the neighborhood and will not-be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvement in the neighborhood. requested clarification if the Board needed three (3) reasons. stated ..that there had: to be one statement. supporting each criteria, that would apply to the application 'if the Board is to Note for approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE FOUR 28.Mr. Morrison asked what setback would be used, the outer edge or the post. 29.Mr. Gero 30.Mr. Vaughn 31.Mr. Kelley 32.Mr. Vaughn 33.-Mr. Kelley 34: Iva% •Vaughn 35:. Kelley showed the Board the setback as the outer edge. inquired how many persons have dealt with this sign, such as engineers, etc. answered that he thought about four (4); an engineer in San Diego, two (2) who do contract work out of California.Mr. McCullough and himself. suggested that before the Board would consider a variance, Mr. Kelley should state special circumstances that exist to this application. stated that property was fast-food chain within a heavy volume of traffic.The sign should be as large and high as possible so people would notice it from a distance. Visibility is essential to them.The amount of money lost by not being able to see the sign readily would be the special cir- cumstance. asked what hardship would occur ifthei applicant did'not:have to meet theordinance? answered that it .was .conceivable,, if in fact there would -be a loss of revenue which would probably -occur.In addition, a city hazard;:cotid .ocetr. 36: —Mr. Vaughn -asked ifMr%.K-elley considered that an •- unnecessary hardship. .Mr. Kelley -stated that:would be a business:amdeconomic hardship because of the.lost -revenue. 38.Mr. Vaughn asked since K -Mart and Safeway, etc. com- plied with the ordinance, why should McDonald's be singled out for a variance? stated that he didn't know, they didn't hire him.He commented that was their prerogative and that he didn't know how they think or what went through their minds. He also stated that McDonald's Corp. are very aggressive people and when they say "Charge" they chiarge. since the above complied with the ordinance, what are the special circumstances? stated that the way he interpreted the letter, all three (3) do not have to be answered.Further, at first approval, he did not show proof of all three (3). Stated that it could be a potential hardship, and that any hardship on a business would be in terms of dollars. 39.Mr. Kelley 4'.0 Mt. Vaughn 41.Mr. Kelley 42.Mr. Vaughn Gero asked staff if the Board could do anything about the height of the sign. -replied no, the 35 feet in height is permitted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE FIVE 44.Mr. Morrison stated that the other businesses mentioned never asked for a variance, so why should McDonald's be different. 45.Mr. Kelley 46.Mr. Burfiend 47.Mr. Gero 48.Chairman 49.Mr. Gero 50.Mr. Morrison 51.Mr. Frazier 52.Mr. Gero 53.Chairman 54.Kermit Bressner 55.Mr. Gero 56.Chairman 57.Mr. Gero 58.Chairman answered that the Board is here for this reason.The other businesses apparently never chose to ask for a variance and nothing should be etched in stone. noted that the businesses mentioned .were all different types of businesses and there could be no accurate comparison. asked the Board if they would like the staff to make its presentation and then could go back to Mr. Kelley and the floor for public comment. asked staff for its presentation. gave a case summary and history and showed slides of pictures taken of property in question.He noted:1)that the road sloped downwards from traffic signal by the Dog Track.2)that U.S Highway 60 is about four to five feet higher than the off -site area;3)that the Dog Track sign had a clearance of about 18-20 feet below; and that from a vertical and horizontal perspective there is about a 1250 foot sight clearance to the sign from the roadway. asked if McDonald's was going to bring grade up on property. replied that the building ,plans—indicate the lot would-be brought up'two (2') from tts,:present, Condition. stated that there would not be any obstruction of sign whether it was set -back 5' or 15'. People will have no trouble seeing the sign.Stated further that the Board of Adjustment is not permitted to legislate. If granting one variance can be applied to all properties that may be the same as legislating which only the City Council may do. asked for public comment for or against. spoke in favor of the sign and franchise. He said he had been in business for 22 years and anyone in business has to have a sign.He stated that the City needs new businesses, and he was in favor of the new business either way. stated that he was in favor of new businesses too; new businesses in the community is good, however,the Board could not step out of its authority. inquired as to why this was presented to the Board of Adjustment. replied that a valid application was sub- mitted for a variance. asked why this doesn't go to the City Council. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE SIX 59.Mr. Frazier informed the Board that anyone can appeal to the Board for a variance, and that going through the Board was the first step of the process. 60.Chairman felt that the Board was being led to make decisions. 61.Mr. Gero 62.Chairman 63..Mrs, Luddy 64.Mr. Burfiend 65.Mr. Gero 66.Mr. Burfiend informed the Board that State law provides the framework under which the Board of Adjustment is permitted to operation, and that once an acceptable application is received it comes to the Board with staff recommendations and information. had general comments and discussion on Board of Adjustment powers. stated that the Board's responsibility was not to make money for Apache Junction. It is for opinion and then for compromise. She felt that McDonald's had good intent but did not show a hardship created. said that he felt applications should not be accepted if the Board cannot act on them. replied that the staff cannot get involved at that stage, that they cannot prejudge on behalf of the Board.Three criteria have to be met and there are different points of view on these only which the Board can act upon. stated that he made the original motion at the November 1, 1982 meeting and he still felt the same about the application. 67.Chairman asked if there were anymore comments. 68.Mr. Kelley expressed concern about the letter again, about the three (3) specific criteria met. At the November 1, 1982 meeting he only met one (1) of these, now the Board was dwelling on all three (3).He said that he felt the Board was being intimidated by the staff and he felt embarrassed for the Board. 69.Chairman asked for staff recommendation. 70.Mr. Gero 71.Chairman stated that a sign is used for communication and that a sufficient view of the McDonald's sign will be had no matter what lane a vehicle is in, and he recommends that the Board deny the variance. asked if there were anymore questions or comments; there were none.He then called for a motion. 72.Luddy/Morrison M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjust- ment of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that a variance to Section 1606 of the City Zoning Ordinance for installation of a sign in case BA -11-82 be denied. The Board bases its decision on the follow- ing reasons: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES- DECEMBER 6, 1982 'PAGE SEVEN 73.Mr. Vaughn 74.Mr. Gero 75.Chairman 76.Norma Corsi 77. 78. 79. 80. Mr. Vaughn Mrs. Corsi Chairman Mr. Gero 81.Chairman 82.Morrison/Luddy 1.There are no special circumstances applicable to the property which prevent the applicant from com- plying with setback requirements, and 2.Complying with the 15 -foot setback will not work an unnecessary hardship on the applicant." The motion passed (5-1), with Mr. Jessamine dissenting. asked staff if the next case, BA -4-81 was just a renewal or a public hearing. informed the Board that the case had been advertised as a public hearing. asked if the applicant, Mrs. Corsi, would speak. presented her case stating that none of the special circumstances had changed and that her mother was MOW receiving $319.00 a month from Social Security.She presented a copy of the checks received by her mother. asked if the original need still existed. stated yes. asked for staff briefing and recommendations. stated that this is a renewal and that no complaints had been received since the last public hearing.He said that staff has no comments, but recommended that the permit be renewed for another 9 months. asked if there were any comments for or against; there were none.He then called for a motion. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjust- ment of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, hereby granting a nine (9) month renewal of the temporary permit originally issued to the applicant in case BA -4-81.This temporary permit shall be subject to the same conditions as the original permit. The Board bases its decision of the following reasons: 1.The applicant has demonstrated sufficient need for permit renewal, and 2.Permit conditions have been complied with." The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with a comment from Mr. Vaughn for the record that he did not approve it before because he saw no reason for it, but he would vote "yes" this time in that no adverse comments have appeared. BOARD OF_ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE! EIGHT 83.Chairman asked if the applicant for case BA -5-82 was present. 84 Mr Gero stated that the applicant had been notified and :that since the.apPlication the work has.been-completed on the :subject site. andHthe need for:thevariance no longer exists. 85.Mr. Frazier confirmed that the structural defects had been repaired. 86.Mr. Gero recommended that the Board lets this case expire. 87.Chairman called for a motion. 88.Burfiend/Luddy M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that in Case BA -5 -82, -the Board finds from comments from the Building Official of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the reasons necessitating the requested appeal have been remedied and therefore the Board of Appeals takes no action and lets this case expire." The motion passed unanimously (6-0). 89.Chairman asked if the applicants on the next case, BA -13-82 were present. 90.Sterling Hardwick stated that he wanted to place a trailer on his property to house his mother-in- law due to poor health and financial pur- poses.He pointed out that there was medical documentation. 91.Mrs. Luddy confirmed that a letter from the doctor was in the Board packet and stated that she had seen the property in question. 92.Mr. Hardwick pointed out that he is on a corner lot with easy access to property. 93.Mr. Gero stated that this is a temporary permit and the applicant has certification as to the mother -in -law's -physical status. Staff has no opposition to this request. 94._.Chairman-asked for comments or objections; there: were-none He then called -for -a motion. 95.Luddy/Vaughn M/S "BE IT RESOLVE1Xby the 1Board of Adjust- mentaof the City of:Apathe-.Junction, Arizona, that a temporary.and revocable permit be issued -to The applicant tri:case BA -13-82 ta place -a second. mobile on the subject property; The following stipulations shall be condi- tions for the permit: 1.The permit shall be for a nine (9) month period. 2.The plot plan submitted with the applica- tion shall be followed. 3.The second mobile home ahall be removed from the premises upon cessation of BOARIXOF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER: 6, 1982 PAGE. NINE 96.Chairman 97.Mr. Gero 98.Mr. Vaughn the need for the unit by Ethel Mowatt. 4.All regulations of agencies_having jurisdiction shall be complied with. The Board bases its decision on the follow- ing reasons: 1.Section 2403 (h) of the City Zoning Ordinance empowers the Board to grant this temporary permit. 2.The applicant has demonstrated a hardship and need for the permit. 3.The health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City shall be maintained." Themotion passed unanimously --(6 70). statedYthat the next item .on the agenda waa:a :consideration of,a.change in the regular.neeting:time, advised the Board that several meetings conflicted and recommended the second Monday •of the.month startIngin „January, 1981.. requested that thefourth .(4th) Monday., also be reservedfor.emergency meetings.• 99 'Mr. Gero .stated that the Board should tell! staff _ :of reserve time:and that they could not . .meet the third Monday due to other conflicts. 100..Mr. Vaughn,requested .that a 6:30 work session also :be held.There was no objection. 101.Chairman called for .a motion after some staff dis- cussion. 'Vaughn/Dunlop 103.Mr. Gero M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjust- ment of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the following section:'II.Meeting Times and Place'of the adopted 'Rules of the City of Apache Junction Board of Adjustment be amended to read as follows: 'II.Meeting Times and Place: The Board will hold their regular meeting on the second Monday of every month at 7:00 P.M., with a work session beginning at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 1001 North Idaho Road, Apache Junction, Arizona.Special meetings, when required, are to be called by the Chairman.'" The motion passed unanimously (6-0). requested that the Board postpone the next item on the agenda, Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Provisions Dealing with the Board of Adjustment, until the January meeting due to the lateness of the hour and other meeting commitments that he had for this night. There was no objection. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1982 PAGE TEN 104.Chairman adjourned the meeting by concensus, there. being no further business. Respectfully submitted Josep W. Gero Executive Secretary • Approved.: ISA I If6w4 dtteJJ Joe Jessamine Chairman