Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 7/13/2006 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Gallegos, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Moe Gallegos, Chairperson Yvonne Knaack, Vice-Chairperson Sandy Burrell Hugh Leonardo Merry Lutz Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Passmore CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, City Attorney Remigio Cordero, Associate Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Gallegos explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Gallegos called for approval of the May 11, 2006 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the May 11, 2006 meeting. Boardmember Lutz SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Gallegos called for public hearing items. July 13, 2006 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-31 REQUEST: A request by Wendy Riddell with Berry & Damore LLC, representing Marvin Spatz with Crown Builders, Inc. for three variances to 1) allow two freestanding signs where one is permitted, 2) allow identification of six tenants on a freestanding sign where three tenants are permitted, and 3) allow a freestanding identification sign height of 9.33 feet where 8 feet is permitted in the C-O Commercial Office district. The property is located 20100 North 51st Avenue. Staff Contact: Remigio J. Cordero (Cholla District). Mr. Cordero presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Schroth asked if Item 7 under staff's Summary of Facts means the applicant would be allowed 296 square feet of wall signage for the entire project. Mr. Cordero responded yes, explaining they are limited to 24 square feet on Buildings A through D and 100 square feet on Building E. Wendy Riddell, applicant, explained the property was originally part of a wildcat subdivision in Maricopa County and was involved in a zoning case for Carmel Park that called for Baron's Drive to be developed to provide access to properties in the back. She said, unfortunately, that never occurred, resulting in residents of the area being upset with the City and the developer. She said, as a result, the neighborhood was quite contentious when her client entered the picture in 2004 requesting a rezoning application from A-1 to C-O. She said 40 to 50 very upset residents attended their first neighborhood meeting, but through a lot of hard work and agreement to a number of very restrictive stipulations they worked through the neighborhood's concerns and obtained unanimous support from the City Council. She pointed out their most impacted neighbor has submitted a letter of support for their application. With regard to the required findings, Ms. Riddell said the size and shape of the parcel were dictated, in part, by an ADOT right-of-way and were not self-imposed by the applicant. She pointed out the actual frontage onto 5151 Avenue is 818 feet, with 605 feet of frontage along the freeway frontage road. She said after taking an inventory of all C-O properties in the City of Glendale, they found the subject site to be the longest C-O site by over 140 feet. She stated 515` Avenue is also the dividing line between the Cities of Phoenix and Glendale, pointing out their requested variances are permitted by right by the City of Phoenix directly across the street. In terms of the second finding, Ms. Riddell compared the subject property to the northeast corner of 51st Avenue and the Loop 101 in Phoenix which, although nearly the same in terms of acreage, is allowed to have two monument signs, taller signs and the additional panels they are requesting. She also compared the site to Arrowhead Office Plaza, stating the site is zoned C-O and has two 11 foot tall freestanding monument signs with eight panels each. She stated the strict application of the city's zoning ordinance would deprive their property of privileges enjoyed by other properties. She disagreed with staff's position that their request is akin to retail signage, stating they believe their request is akin to commercial office signage as evidenced by the two sites she previously mentioned. She pointed out 12 units in their project will not be visible from the street July 13, 2006 Board of Adjustment Page 3 if they are only allowed to have wall signage. With regard to Finding 3, Ms. Riddell said what they are requesting is actually less in height and the number of panels than is allowed by the City of Phoenix and the minimum necessary to alleviate their property hardship. She stated Finding 4 has been met as is evidenced by the fact that no neighbors have shown up in opposition to their request. She said the length of the site and the presence of other properties with similar signage will result in there being no impact on the city in general. Ms. Riddell pointed out the top of the sign measures 8 feet, explaining their request for a height of 9.33 feet is simply for aesthetic purposes. In response to staff's position that their request is premature, she referred to a letter from Cavan Commercial which speaks to the importance of signage in marketing a site. She stated one reason a tenant purchases an office condo as opposed to a multi-tenant office building is their ability to have more visibility. She said their request is critical to the success of their project. She asked the Commission to support their application. Boardmember Burrell asked about the difference between retail and commercial signage. Ms. Riddell deferred the question to city staff. Boardmember Burrell pointed out goods and services will be sold on the property, asking how that differs from a retail site. Ms. Riddell agreed services will be sold, pointing out Cl and C2 commercial strip centers within the City of Glendale have less restrictive signage requirements. Boardmember Schroth asked if six names will be placed on the front and back of each sign. Ms. Riddell explained they will put the same names on each side of the sign, resulting in a total of 12 names on the two signs. Boardmember Schroth asked if they will also have signs on the buildings. Ms. Riddell responded yes, explaining the primary signage will be on the monument signs while the business names and suite numbers will be listed on the building as well. Boardmember Lutz said Glendale's zoning allows only one monument sign with three names. Ms. Riddell agreed. Boardmember Lutz asked if their requested variance would allow them two six-panel monument signs which will accommodate 12 business names. Ms. Riddell responded yes. Boardmember Leonardo asked if there are 24 offices. Ms. Riddell answered yes. Chairperson Gallegos asked if some of the suites, then, will not be listed on the monument signs. Ms. Riddell said some businesses have a greater need for visibility than others. Boardmember Lutz asked how far apart the two monument signs will be. Ms. Riddell said 247 feet, noting they will be perpendicular to 51s`Avenue. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the main impact as a result of the history of the project is the fact that they are restricted to a building height of one story. Ms. Riddell said, while that is one of the primary impacts, they are also held to conformance with the site plan presented at the time. Vice-chair Knaack asked if Glendale's ordinance limits monument signs to listing three businesses. Mr. Jacobs said the signs can either list the same businesses on the front and back of July 13, 2006 Board of Adjustment Page 4 the sign or six different businesses. He pointed out the applicant has indicated they will list the same businesses on the front and back to give their tenants maximum exposure. Boardmember Knaack asked if the development will be a professional office or medical office building. Ms. Riddell said it will be a mix of professional, medical and other office uses. She clarified none of the uses will have retail sales. Boardmember Schroth asked if the building signage will be easily visible from 51" Avenue. Ms. Riddell said it is their position that the wall signage will be visible for up to twelve of their tenants. Boardmember Schroth asked if there is a frontage road along Beardsley. Ms. Riddell said, while there is a frontage road, their property does not have access to it. She pointed out the freeway in that area is elevated. Boardmember Gallegos asked Ms. Riddell how they know there is neighborhood support for their request. Ms. Riddell said they took the time to hold a neighborhood meeting, but only she, Council Member Martinez and Ms. McCullah showed up. She stated no issues were expressed with regard to their application and she is confident the neighborhood would have spoken up given their history of speaking up on previous development plans. Vice-chair Knaack asked if the building signage will list the plaza name or business names. Ms. Riddell said the signs will identify business names and suite numbers. Vice-chair Knaack asked if the wall signs will list the same businesses as those listed on the monument signs. Ms. Riddell responded no, stating the businesses that do not have visibility from the street will be given visibility through the monument signagc. Vice-chair Knaack asked if there is sufficient space on the walls to list the 12 businesses that will not be listed on the monument signs. Ms. Riddell answered yes. Boardmember Schroth asked Ms. Riddell if, in her research, she found any other C-O properties that had been given two signs. Ms. Riddell said no; reiterating, however, that their property is substantially longer than any other site. Boardmember Leonardo asked staff if it is common for every suite to have visibility from the street. Mr. Jacobs responded no, staling the name of the office plaza and the address are usually emphasized with directory signs on the interior of the property used to identify particular buildings or businesses. He said retail uses are typically more concerned with street signage. He admitted Glendale's sign ordinance is more restrictive than Phoenix's. Vice-chair Knaack asked when the sign ordinance was adopted. Mr. Jacobs said the wall signage amendment was adopted within the past couple years, while the monument sign ordinance has not changed for some time. Boardmember Schroth asked if Finding 2 relates specifically to other properties within the City of Glendale. Mr. Jacobs responded yes. July 13, 2006 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Boardmember Lutz asked if the developer could use a directory to identify the location of specific businesses. Mr. Jacobs said directory signage is required by the Fire Department for most office complexes. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Ms. Riddell said there is no language or verbiage within the city's policies that limits application of Finding 2 to properties only within the City of Glendale. She said it is their position that the additional signage is reasonable, will bring value to the project, and meets the city's criteria. Boardmember Schroth said, given the lack of other properties within the City of Glendale that enjoy two signs, he believes approval of the applicant's request would set a precedent. Boardmember Burrell expressed concern about the comparisons made to properties in Phoenix, stating Glendale operates on its own merits. She said it was clear when the property was rezoned that it would have to operate under the City of Glendale's standards. Vice-chair Knaack agreed, stating they should not compare properties that are not located in the same city. Chairperson Gallegos commented the sign is aesthetically pleasing. Boardmember Schroth pointed out the applicant could put six names on the permitted monument sign by putting three on each side. Chairperson Gallegos expressed his opinion the great length of the property could qualify as a special circumstance. Boardmember Leonardo said he visited the site and agrees it is very long. He stated, however, the signs should be located further apart if the size of the property is the driving factor behind the request. Boardmember Lutz pointed out the site, itself, is easily visible from the street. Chairperson Gallegos suggested the length of the property actually offers the applicant an advantage. He said it is possible under the existing sign ordinance to provide most if not all of the tenants will some kind of signage. He pointed out the directory signage will also help. Boardmember Schroth asked if there are any situations in Glendale where there are more than three names on a sign. Mr. Jacobs said he is not aware of any. Boardmember Schroth commented each of the applicant's requests need to be looked at individually in terms of the required findings. July 13, 2006 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Vice-chair Knaack pointed out the property was purchased with the ordinance in place and existing businesses in the area have complied with the ordinance, stating it would be unfair to those businesses to approve the applicant's request. Boardmember Leonardo made a MOTION to VOTE on VAR05-31, subject to the site plan dated October 13, 2005. Vice-chair Knaack SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Lutz asked if the case could be continued with direction to the applicant to revise their request. Mr. Jacobs responded yes. Mr. Gallegos expressed his opinion a continuance is not an option, stating the Board would have to find additional information was necessary to make its decision. He pointed out the applicant is always free to submit a revised application. Boardmember Schroth thanked the applicant for her presentation, stating he is somewhat torn on the matter. He said, however, he believes they need to uphold the city's rules. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Gallegos called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was given. Chairperson Gallegos called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Sally Melling, Recording'Secretary