Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING OF DECEMBER 12,2005 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,was held on December 12,2005,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers,300 E.Superstition Boulevard,pursuant to the notice required by law. SYNOPSIS BA -3-05 - Temporary. Use Permit for storage facility CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Board Members Present:Chairwoman Mari Gardner Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Vacancy Carol Urich Sandra Spelman Lori D'Amico Jane Jones Board Members Absent:Board Member Austin Staff Present: ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA City Attorney Joel Stern Associate Planner Steve Abraham BOARD MEMBERS SPELMAN/JONES M/S "I MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA." MOTION CARRIED VOTE 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 1 OF 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS BA -3-05 Temporary Use Permit -Scott and Sharla Saylor Recreational vehicle storage facility Superstition Blvd.and Idaho Road Associate Planner Steve Abraham reported that this is a 9 month Temporary Use. Permit request by Charles Saylor,on behalf of Scott and Sharla Saylor,to run a commercially operated recreational vehicle storage facility located 660 feet north of the intersection of E.Superstition Boulevarliand N.Idaho Road,on . the west side.:The subject site is:across the street and to the west of the , City of Apache Junction Multi -Generational Center.The applicants intend to utilize the ,9 month Temporary Use Permit from its potential issue date (December)to September of 2006 and use of the storage-area.would be for the public at large. In April of 2003,City Council rezoned the subject site from GR to C-3/PD (Case PZ-6-02),Ordinance No.1174. There are several points to consider on this request: 1.City Council has approved .a development plan and several development related stipulations for -this use and this property as listed under Ordinance -No.1174. 2.All new commercial uses are subject to all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,Landscape and Screening Codes,and Engineering Guidelines. 3.The area around .the subject property has been recently improved_ 4.As part of the review,the Development Services'Engineer and Public Works staff expressed several desired conditions including "double , chip -sealing"any areas proposed for RV storageor vehicle travel:,a-- fUllyipaved driveway off of Idaho Road,and submittal of a grading and drainage plan showing proposed retention basinsAhat has been prepared by a registered engineer: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 2 OF 10 The request is temporary in nature and does not involve:theerection of substantial buildings.The request -does not seemAo coincide with the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance or several other development related codes, ordinances -and policies.Staff recommends the Board deny. the Saylor's request Ifthe ,Board approves the Saylor's request staff recommends five (5) stipulations of ,approval. Clifford Saylor,speaking on behalf of Scott Saylor,1530 W.Flinn Lane,. Phoenix;AZ,addressedthe'BOard.Scott Saylor inherited this property.The property _was -transferred in March of 2002.It took 3-4 full years tcYresolve IRS issues..They have:hired another engineer to look into the feasibility of: the project.The Saylor's would like to ,takeHa portion ofthe property and make it profitable.There has been discussion of landscaping irrfrontiof the property .and double chip sealing the property:The property drains_ to the west and through_Chapparal Mobile Home Park.The -2 greater concerns are double ,chipsealing and in submitting plans and getting them approved in a: timely.manner:There ,does.appear to be -a need in the city fOr this type of; storage.Based: on projections,i t is estimated the Saylor's could be: generating,up to $90,000.00 in revenue from this piece of property. Board MemberlJones :asked if there would be sales: taking :place on:this property?Will therete any repairing done: on site? Mr.Saylor ,answered ho sales and no ,repairing,only storage. Board Member:Jones commented that if they ,are.working on upgrading why -can they not go-ahead and,put the double chip down to.keepjlust down, Mr.Saylor said as I understand it therEare other requirements for concrete.! If they have to double chip seal it is financiallylunfeasible..I don't think. they would spend the money for a 9 month permit without knowing for a fact that they could move forward on the other project.I t is strictly a matter of financial feasibility.. Board Member:Jones remarked that what they would be doing: for the next 9 months is making ,sure.this project is going: to work forthe -public: Mr.Saylor said yes,they want to do a feasible study and finish the engineering.That is the first step.They don't have any drawings other than the plans you have.We have none of the engineering.They are engaging an BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 3 OF 10 engineer at this time to finalize plans for cost estimates.The temporary use permit would help them generate revenue. Board Member Urich said the ordinance was signed over 2 '4 years ago.The City Council had 13 stipulations and I notice,and staff has pointed out,that none of the City Council approved development stipulations were included in your temporary permit.None of them.It was very clear in the ordinance that stipulations had to be met. Mr.Saylor said that is for permanent improvement and a permanent project. They are looking now at a temporary project.Something that is cost effective.Many of those stipulations such as the 6 foot walls and rod iron fencing on the east and full street improvements simply would not be feasible for a 9 month temporary permit.Those are the issues they have to resolve in order to find out if that project is economically viable.No one can move forward on that until they answer that question.In the meantime they would like to turn what is now a vacant lot into something that is generating revenue.They have tried to locate the original engineer for the project without success.They are not trying to get around the stipulations.Those stipulations would be part of the permanent project. Board Member Urich said the stipulations are not included at all. Mr.Saylor said they would like to do the landscaping across the front of Idaho Road.There needs to be.a gate put in on the south end.Those would make sense for them and the city. Chairwoman Gardner asked if their plans are to start working on the plans? Scott Saylor,320 County Road DD,Falwell,TX,address the Board.Yes,we are in contact with an engineer. Chairwoman Gardner asked if this is your desire to make this a permanent project?• Mr.Saylor said that is correct.It needs to not set there empty and we just pay property taxes. Vice Chairwoman Spelman asked if it is not approved does that mean that you will not go ahead with it? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 4 OF 10 Mr.Saylor answered that it will definitely delay it greatly.We need the revenue to proceed. Pasquale D'Amico,1440 N.Idaho Road,A.J.,addressed the Board.He was concerned about traffic and the view from his home.He disagrees with the project. Chairwoman Gardner asked if anyone from the public wished to address the Board on this issue.Seeing none,she closed the public meeting and opened i t for discussion among members. Board Member Urich commented stipulation 13 of Ordinance #1174 very clearly says,"the property shall be developed within 24 months of rezoning approval or be subject to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated A.R.S.Section 9-462.01."I t has been 2 years,so City Council could actually go back on the zoning. Associate Planner Steve Abraham answered that is correct.City Council could have a legislative action to revert the zoning back to its previous configuration which would have been General Rural. Chairwoman Gardner said if you go back to GR then it would take all these stipulations off and it would only have the buffer or very minimal things.I t wouldn't be the same.Is that correct? Associate Planner Steve Abraham noted he is thinking everything goes away.I would have to defer this to the City Attorney. Chairwoman Gardner said we could make stipulations of a buffer or fencing as long as it was a temporary one. City Attorney Joel Stern advised a reversion action would return the property to what it was before Ordinance #1174 was passed.It would go back to GR and any nonconforming uses they had,they would still have.We would turn it back in time to 2003.The stipulations in your packet would not have to be done. As a matter of temporary use and you wanted to approve it tonight you could put in stipulations for temporary purposes.In order to approve the temporary use i t has to be a true temporary use.The code doesn't define what true temporary use means.I t is subject to interpretation by Mr.Abraham.It would be for 9 months and then it could be subject to conditions that would safeguard the public health,safety,and convenience and general welfare. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 5 OF 10 Once again,that is an interpretation issue.You can come up with reasonable conditions that you feel would protect or safeguard the public health,safety, and convenience and general welfare of the community.Use your best judgment. You may come up with reasonable terms or you can deny it also. Vice Chairwoman Spelman commented that she feels this is like a trial run at our expense. Board Member Urich said she is concerned that none of the stipulations were put in the Temporary Use Permit for the 9 months. Board Member Jones remarked that to her i t is an eyesore.Unless we put in a stipulation that they have to do the front with greenery and put walls up,I feel this will become the same thing.Even on a 9 month basis.Who is to say that the trailers and RV's there now will move in 9 months?Who can guarantee that in 9 months it won't be the same as i t is now? Chairwoman Gardner opened the hearing back to the public. Clifford Saylor from Phoenix,AZ,addressed the Board.I appreciate the concerns.Mrs.Saylor indicated that the trailers that are there belong to individuals in the park.They do not take in revenue from the trailers.They are not rentals.I understand your concern.I don't believe there is anything at the city's expense other than allowing a temporary use.I assume the city has the authority to come in and force the removal.At one time there was a gross misuse of this property under a previous manager.It is under new management.If this reverts to GR,essentially you have a piece of land that can be developed for home units,agriculture or set idle.All the applicant wants to do is try to generate revenue until such a time they could go forward with the rest of the project.The timing is an issue as to whether they can start this year or this time next year. Board Member D'Amico inquired as to why a business license for the RV storage business was not applied for. Mr.Clifford Saylor said he didn't know about the business license. Associate Planner Steve Abraham said in order to operate a business on that property they would have needed a business license. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 6 OF 10 Board Member Urich asked under what permission are you storing anything on that lot? Mrs.Saylor said when we began this rezoning from General Rural to commercial zoning we employed an engineer and worked with him for 2 years on this project.It took 18 months to finally get us zoned and we were ready to start our building permits.If there was a business permit that was needed we didn't hear of anything from the engineer.The engineer has left us up in the air.He has our files,drawing,surveys,and everything we need to go forward with this project.We are asking that you allow us to generate this temporary permit so that we can create a new engineering file.We have a need here in Apache Junction for storage for the winter visitors.We have owned this property since 1963.We are here managing the property for our son.We have watched Apache Junction grow and change.We would like to generate this spring income to get the proper items to go forward with the project at the end of 9 months.We will build the walls. Board Member Urich reiterated that her question still has not been answered. How many units do you have stored there now and what permission_ Mrs.Saylor said these people that live on our park told us as long as we did not have any revenue off these units that they could be left there as long as the people lived there.We collect no revenue at all.Everything has to be cleared out in order to get ready for this project.No one told us they had to be moved when we applied for this rezoning from GR to C-3/PD. Board Member Urich asked so you did not ask for a business license,but what permission do you have to have them park there? Mrs.Saylor answered we have no permission.No one told us it was illegal for them to be there..They have been there for years.The storage items that were there when we came were a surprise to us.We did not know the property was not being used properly. Associate Planner Steve Abraham noted back in 2003 it was discovered that there was an illegal business being run on the property.During the research of the rezoning it was determined that the overflow parking for Desert Holiday and possibly Chapparal Mobile Ranch was allowed for the residents in that park.It was a lawful nonconforming use for the overflow parking only.Staff believes that the business aspect has been discontinued.The lawful BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 7 OF 10 nonconforming issue of the overflow parking lot goes through the rezoning, until i t is ceased for a year or the property is substantially redeveloped, you allow it to stop.Hypothetically,the collection of personal things on the south end of that portion should be for residents within the 2 mobile home parks along with the tractor trailers. Board Member Jones said if we should approve this tonight I want to see i t beautified instead of seeing trailers parked in there.We have a beautiful library,new Multi -Generational Center and a children's park right across the street. Mrs.Saylor said we will put landscape screening across the front on Idaho i f this permit is given to us.We understand that we must get a certified landscape engineer and we will do that.We want to make our side of that street look as good as your side of the street. Chairwoman Gardner asked what type of fencing are you proposing for the temporary site? Mrs.Saylor said Palo Verde trees because they can be easily transplanted and they get very full.The income period of time for us will be over in June. The individuals will sign information that they acknowledge that they know when they put their vehicle there in 9 months or sooner it must be removed. We will not accept anything permanent until the project is completed.The items that are there now will have 30 days to be removed once we are given our permit.The chain link fencing will remain for now and we will spray to keep the dust down. Vice Chairwoman Spelman asked if the trees would be up before you started storage. Associate Planner Steve Abraham said that would be up to the Board.You could condition that. Board Member Urich said none of the stipulations in the ordinance were put into the Temporary Use Permit. Mrs.Saylor said out of ignorance I had no idea that these items should have been in the request.Had I known it should have been there,I would have put them there. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 8 OF 10 Board Member Urich asked if you would be willing to put them there if we continued it? Mrs.Saylor asked what things are you talking about?We cannot do the asphalt.I t is not economically feasible to do. Chairwoman Gardner asked if there was anyone that wished to speak for or against this item? Pasquale D'Amico,1440 N.Idaho Road,Apache Junction,AZ,addressed the Board.When I opened up my restaurant the Health Department came in and said you have to do this,and this,and this.I rest my case. Chairwoman Gardner called for a motion. BOARD MEMBER URICH/D'AMICO MIS "I MOVE THAT CASE BA -3-05,A REQUEST BY CHARLES SAYLOR,ON BEHALF OF SCOTT AND SHARLA SAYLOR,FOR A 9 MONTH TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY COMMERCIALLY OPERATED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE LOT,ON A 5 -ACRE PROPERTY,LOCATED 660 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST SUPERSTITION BOULEVARD AND NORTH IDAHO ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE (PINAL COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 100-31-025),BE DENIED,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1)THE USE WILL NOT BE PROPERLY BUFFERED FROM IDAHO ROAD AND WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. 2)ALLOWING THIS TEMPORARY USE DOES NOT COINCIDE WIT.H ESTABLISHED CITY CODES,GUIDELINES,AND POLICIES REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 3)THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE THIRTEEN (13)CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN ORDINANCE #1174." MOTION CARRIED FOR DENIAL VOTE 3-2 (MEMBERS GARDNER AND SPELMAN IN OPPOSITION) City Attorney Joel Stern advised any person aggrieved of any decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may at any time within 30 days of said BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 9 OF 10 decision file a complaint for special action in Superior Court to review any Board decision pursuant to A.R.S.9-462.06. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REQUEST OF STAFF Board Member L.D'Amico requested an update on the status of -the'progress on the Shell Gas Station sigtvon-the corner of Ironwood and Apache Trail at the next meeting. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INFORMATION AND REPORTS None - SELECTION OF MEETING DATE,TIMES,LOCATIONS,AND PURPOSES BOARD -MEMBERSID'AMICO/SPELMAN M/S MOVE THAT THE REGULAR MEETING,OF THE BOARD -OF -ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS BE HELD AT 7:0013.M.ON JANUARY 9,2006,- AT -THE CITY HALL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 300 E.SUPERSTITION BOULEVARD: MOTION CARRIED VOTE OF 5-0 Chairwoman Gardner .announced there beinglio further .business to .discuss,and •with no:objections,this meeting is adjourned. MARLGARDNER -Chairwoman RU Exec cretary BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DECEMBER 12,2005 PAGE 10 OF 10