AGENDA ITEM __________
DATE __________
Regular Meeting
June 8, 2010
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CASA GRANDE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 510 E. FLORENCE BOULEVARD, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA
I. Call to Order and Pledge:
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
II. Roll Call:
Members Present:
Member Roger Badger
Member Cristobal Hernandez
Member Mark Zeibak
Member Rueben Garcia
Vice-Chairman Stephen Gentzkow
Absent:
Chairman Harold Vangilder Unexcused
City Staff Present:
Paul Tice, Planning and Development Director
Carl Metz, Planner
Jennifer Downs, Office Assistant
III. Approval of Minutes:
Member Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes dated May 11, 2010. Member Hernandez seconded the motion. A voice call vote was called; all were in favor.
IV. New Business:
A. DSA-10-00043: Request by Charles Wright, Pinal Design Group, 711 N. Walnut Dr., Casa Grande, AZ 85122, for a Variance from Required Parking Number and Design Standards for the Corazon Hub on approximately 0.137 acres, m.o.l., located at 418 E. 3rd St., the NWC of 3rd and Toltec Streets A.K.A. Casa Grande Townsite Lots 19 & 20 of Block 37 A.K.A. a portion of Section 29, T6S, R6E, G&SRM, Pinal County, Arizona, APN 507-07-224.
STAFF REPORT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission approve DSA-010-00043, Variance from Required Parking Number and Design Standards for the Corazon Hub on approximately 0.137 acres subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event that parking at the facility proves to be inadequate, the Conditional Use Permit may be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Director, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.68.100 of the Zoning Code.
APPLICANT/OWNER
Chuck Wright
Pinal Design Group
711 N. Walnut Dr.
Casa Gradne, AZ 85122
P: 466-5091
Email: pdgroupllc@msn.com Corazon Behavioral Health Services
900 E. Florence Blvd.
Casa Gradne, AZ 85122
P: 836-4278
HISTORY
1915: The City of Casa Grande was incorporated. The subject property was within of the City’s original incorporated limits.
1940: Existing single-family residential structure was built.
August 2, 2007: The site received approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for a Charity Dining Facility, Homeless Shelter, and Similar Use subject to the approval of the Variance being requested. Passed 6-0.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Development
Site Area (net) 5,750 sf /0.137 ac
Building Area 2,051 sq. ft.
Parking 2 On-site
6 On-street (adjacent)
Context Aerial
Site and Surrounding Area Land Use and Zoning
Direction General Plan Designation Existing Zoning Current Uses
Site Community Center R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Single-family residential home
North Community Center R-1 Single-family residential home
East Community Center R-1 Single-family residential home
South Community Center R-1 Vacant lot
West Community Center R-1 Single-family residential home
Northwest Community Center R-1 Single-family residential home
Northeast Community Center R-1 Single-family residential home
Southeast Community Center R-1 Vacant lot
Southwest Community Center R-1 Vacant lot
Zoning: Site and Surrounding Area
Overview
Corazon Behavioral Health Services is requesting to operate a satellite facility, known as the ‘Corazon Hub,’ at 418 E. 3rd Street (NWC of 3rd and Toltec Streets). The property is zoned R-1 (single-family residential). The purpose of the Corazon Hub is to expand some of the activities that are currently being offered at the Corazon offices at 900 E. Florence Blvd. to a more comfortable, home-like setting. The focus for this facility will be on supervised youth activities with minimal counseling and support programming. The goal of the facility, as stated by the applicant, is to provide youth enrolled in their programs a “home-away-from-home.” Activities will be conducted throughout the day with no overnight stays.
The proposed activity does not clearly fit into any of the City Code’s provisions. It has elements of several R-1 Conditionally Permitted Uses such as ‘Day Care Center,’ ‘Group Home,’ and ‘Charity Dining Facility, Homeless Shelter, and Similar Use.’ Given the proposed use primarily focuses on providing shelter (no overnight, supervised) with counseling and other support services being secondary, City Staff determined that the use best fit the ‘Charity Dining Facility, Homeless Shelter, and Similar Use’ use, specifically within its Similar Use element and a focus on the proposed facility’s provision of shelter. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for a ‘Charity Dining Facility, Homeless Shelter, and Similar Use’ on May 6, 2010 subject to the approval of the Variance currently being requested. The motion passed 6-0.
The applicant is requesting relief from the City Code’s on-site parking number requirement and design standards. The portions being requested for the Variance are as follows:
• Minimum number of eight on-site parking stalls (Table 17.56.220.B. ‘Offices’ use)
• On-site parking is accessed from a minimum 24’ wide drive and not directly from the public street. (17.56.070).
• All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be paved with concrete or asphaltic concrete. (17.56.130)
Currently, there are two on-site parking spaces accessed via driveways off Toltec Street. The applicant anticipates most regular visitors will not be driving to the property. Instead, they will either be walking to the facility or shuttled by Corazon from their offices at 900 E. Florence Blvd. In the event that visitors do require parking, there is sufficient on-street parking adjacent to the facility for six cars and more available along other nearby streets.
EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE
In accordance with Section 17.54.040 of the Casa Grande City Code, the following criteria shall be considered and met during the approval of any variance.
A. That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property referred to in the application which do not prevail on other property in that zone.
The proposed use of the Corazon Hub is unique in its development within a predominately R-1 neighborhood. Though it would not operate as a residence, the applicant seeks to maintain the structure’s current residential presence and compatibility with the surrounding homes. The implementation of the identified parking provisions would hamper that effort.
B. That the strict application of the regulations would work an unnecessary hardship and that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial existing property rights.
The applicants would not be able to operate the proposed Hub as it is requesting if they were required to adhere to the Code’s requirements. The Code would require the construction of an eight space parking lot which would probably require the demolition of a significant amount the existing structure and render about half of the lot unusable. Additionally, it would negate the property’s residential character and the “home-away-home” environment the applicants are trying to establish for their clients.
C. That the granting of such application will not materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements of the neighborhood.
The variance would help preserve the residential character of the lot along with the surrounding area and the proposed use will not generate a significant amount of parking need. Additionally, the approved CUP Resolution stipulates that in the event that the parking does prove inadequate the CUP may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.68.100 of the Zoning Code.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
General Plan 2020 Compliance
The proposed use is in conformance with its Community Center land use designation which supports a range of residential and commercial uses.
Small Area Transportation Study Compliance
The Major Site Plan complies with the Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study, approved by City Council July 2007.
Community Services Department Master Plan Compliance
The Major Site Plan complies with the Community Services Department Master Plan (March 2007).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/COMMENTS
Notification
Public hearing notification efforts for this request meet and exceed those requirements set out by City Code. They include:
• A notice of time, date, place, and purpose of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the city at least fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing.
• A similar notice was mailed by the applicant at least fifteen days before the day of the hearing to each owner of property situated within two hundred feet of the subject property. The names and addresses of the owners were provided to the City by applicant. An affidavit confirming this mailing was supplied by the applicant.
• A similar notice was printed on a sign and posted by the applicant on the subject site. An affidavit confirming this posting was also supplied by the applicant.
Inquiries/Comments
At the time of writing, Staff has not received any inquires or comments on the proposed development.
Exhibits
1. Zoning: Site and Surrounding Area Map
2. Context Aerial Map
3. Site Plan
4. Floor Plan
Carl Metz, Planner, came forward and presented a brief overview of the case as stated in the Staff Report. Mr. Metz informed the Board that the case was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 6, 2010, and received approval for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). One of the conditions of the Planning Commission’s approval was that the applicant obtain a variance for the parking scenario they are requesting. Mr. Metz stated the applicant would like to keep the residential nature for their property, which will make it a more comfortable setting for the youth enrolled in their programs, and allow the facility to blend in with the residential neighborhood. Mr. Metz listed the three areas of the city code that the applicant is requesting the variance for; number of parking stalls, on-site parking access from a 24’ wide drive and paving of the driveways and parking stalls. The applicant is requesting two on site parking spaces with six addition parking spaces on the street adjacent to the home. Mr. Metz noted the applicant does not foresee any traffic to this site other than staff; the youth will be walking to the facility, dropped off or bussed from the main office on Florence Boulevard. Mr. Metz then addressed the 24’ drive isle; he stated half the existing structure would have to be demolished in order to meet this requirement. He then noted the code requiring the parking and driveways to be paved again, would take away from the residential character of the home. Currently the driveway is gravel or decomposed granite.
Mr. Metz overviewed for the Board the three finding that shall be considered and met by the Board when considering a variance (the findings are listed in the above staff report).
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow questioned if the variance is only good for this user, or will it be grandfathered for the next user?
Mr. Metz replied the only other use that would be able to take place on the site would be single family residential or any other permitted uses in the R-1 district, which is minimal.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow questioned if the parking requirements would change.
Mr. Metz replied “no”.
Paul Tice, Planning and Development Director reiterated for the Board that the property is still zoned single-family residential and this use is allowed in the single-family zone with the CUP approval. The parking variance will be associated with the CUP approval, so if the CUP approval goes away the parking variance will go away as well.
Member Garcia questioned the double gates to the back and if they are going to remain opened adding two more parking spaces in the back. He also questioned why the city would not require the applicant to pave the driveways.
Mr. Metz responded that there is a code requirement to pave the driveways; however, the applicant is requesting not to pave. He noted there are a lot of residences throughout the city in the older neighborhoods that do not have their driveways paved. Mr. Metz then noted that he directed the applicant not to show the parking between the gates on the street because he felt it was more orderly to keep the parking on the street.
Member Garcia stated his only concern is if there are cars parked inside the gates, then they do have room for two more vehicles.
Mr. Metz stated the variance is for the on-site parking; the code requires eight spaces within the boundaries of their site.
Member Garcia stated the maps show parking along the wall by the two gates and his concern is if they park within the gates and two more vehicles park behind them, this would cause a hazard for the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk.
Mr. Metz noted that will be only on-site parking.
Director Tice questioned if the concern is if tandem parking occurs behind parking spaces one and two (between the gate on the street) when a vehicle backs out onto the street they will not be able to see the pedestrians on the sidewalk?
Member Garcia stated the walls are 6 feet high.
Director Tice noted there is a space between the wall and the sidewalk.
Member Badger questioned if the applicant currently owns the site.
Mr. Metz replied “yes, they own the site”.
Member Zeibak questioned when the applicant purchased the site.
Mr. Metz replied he will have the applicant address the question.
Teresa Menchaca, owner of Corazon Inc., 900 E. Florence Boulevard, Casa Grande, came forward to address the Commission. Ms. Menchaca stated they bought the property two years ago and have been renovating the site. She also mentioned they are not planning on using the on-site parking area, since part of the area is for outside activities for the kids; if you open the gates there is a volley ball court.
Member Garcia commended Ms. Menchaca on the home and stated it adds to the neighborhood. He questioned if the two on-site parking spaces are going to be outside the fence.
Mr. Menchaca questioned if what Staff is stating is that there will be two parking spaces inside the area and up to six parking spaces on the street.
Mr. Metz replied “yes”, two on-site and the six will be street parking spaces which will be immediately adjacent to the home.
Ms. Menchaca commented they do not foresee they will have that many vehicles. She stated there will be a van and a couple of vehicles at the site during business hours only.
Member Garcia questioned how many people currently use the facility.
Ms. Menchaca replied the facility is not currently being used, but they have been approved to have occupancy of 25 people at any given time in the facility. They are hoping the fire department will allow a few more once they look at the outside area.
Member Zeibak questioned the number of staff members.
Ms. Menchaca replied there will be one staff member for every five unsupervised child; some children could have their parents with them.
Mr. Zeibak questioned where the staff members will be parking.
Mr. Menchaca stated they will be parking on the street.
Clara Trulove, owner of properties located at 216 N. Casa Grande Ave, and 210 N. Casa Grande Ave, Casa Grande, came forward to address the Board. Ms. Trulove stated she purchased the home at 216 N. Casa Grande Ave in 1979 and it was a great place to live until you get bad things happening. First Calvary Baptist Church started offering the Seeds of Hope free lunch program that came into the neighborhood and it has been horrible, they have went to the church many times with complaints and problems. Ms. Trulove told the Board some of the issues she had with the lunch program. Ms. Trulove expressed her concerns with this home and stated this is the first she has heard about the hearings on this project and they feel the neighborhood is in jeopardy if they allow adults in this facility.
Ms. Menchaca interjected and noted there will only be children at this facility.
Ms. Trulove continued and stated they heard it was going to be a homeless house for men, then women and now they are saying it is going to be for children. She feels one adult for five children does not sound like enough not to mention the parking which will be at least 5 vehicles parking on rocks that the children can use as ammunition, they will pick up the rocks and throw them. Ms. Trulove stated this kind of facility will devaluate their property. She also stated is bothers her that they had no other opportunities to say anything about this being in their neighborhood.
Ms. Trulove again stated the Seeds of Hope lunch program has people hanging out around the park one to two hours prior to lunch being served and one to two hours after lunch is served. They also have problems with children “tagging” the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow asked staff that when this case went before the Planning and Zoning Commission were these issues presented.
Mr. Metz stated the case did go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the CUP in May and the surrounding property owners within 200’ of this property were notified by a letter and signs were also posted on the site for several months advertising the meeting; this is in accordance with our city code. Mr. Metz noted there was some public comment at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from a nearby resident who voiced similar concerns.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow commented the business tonight is strictly for the parking variance, other concerns have already been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated he understands what Ms. Trulove is saying but it does not fit the role of the parking variance that is being discussed tonight.
Member Garcia addressed Ms. Trulove and stated he sits on the Board of Directors for the Seeds of Hope and he also is on the Board of Directors for the Boys and Girls Clubs in Casa Grande. He asked Ms. Trulove is she has had a chance to speak with Mr. Vanderheyden who is the Director for the Seeds of Hope.
Member Garcia stated he is aware of one of the instances she mentioned. He informed Ms. Trulove that he will be more than glad to go with her to speak with Mr. Vanderheyden to resolve her concerns.
Mr. and Ms. Trulove stated it does not seem to do any good; they have also spoken with the Church.
Member Garcia offered to sit with the Trulove’s after the meeting to discuss their concerns.
Ms. Menchaca commented it was the Seeds of Hope and the Church that was at the first meeting who opposed this facility; they thought the facility was going to be in competition with them. She stated a homeless shelter at this location was never discussed.
Mr. Metz stated some of the confusion could have come from the CUP classification. This facility’s use is very unique and the interpretation that it fits under was what our code refers to as “charitable dining facility, homeless shelter and similar use”. This facility is under the “similar use” provision it will not have any overnight stay and it is not a homeless shelter, it is more like a “day shelter” for children who are enrolled in their program.
Ms. Menchaca noted that under the conditions of the CUP they are allowed to have activities at the site until 10 p.m. She also noted it was not the Seeds of Hope that objected to this facility it was a woman from the Calvary Church.
Mr. Metz commented he did not recall who the person was that voiced their concerns.
Member Hernandez commented if all they are asking for is public parking, the street is public.
Vice-Chairperson Gentzkow noted they have to provide eight parking spaces.
Member Hernandez made a motion to approve case DSA-10-00043, Variance for required parking number and design standards for the Corazon Hub. Member Garcia seconded the motion.
The following roll call vote was recorded:
Member Badger Aye
Member Hernandez Aye
Member Zeibak Aye
Member Garcia Aye
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow Aye
The motion passed 5 – 0.
V. Discussion:
Review approval of Special Use Permit associated with Comprehensive Sign Plans.
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN – DISCUSSION PAPER
Existing Code Provisions
Section 606 – Comprehensive Sign Plan
A comprehensive sign plan may be submitted by the developers of a proposed commercial development which will occupy the entire frontage of one or more block fronts, or by the developers of a planned shopping center. Such a plan may include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all proposed signs, in addition to any other information deemed necessary and may be submitted in conjunction with the required preliminary Site Plan for the development. If the comprehensive sign plan is found to be acceptable, exceptions to the provisions of this Code may be granted, if the sign areas and densities shown on the plan are in conformity with the intent of this Code and if such exceptions result in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. All comprehensive sign plans shall require Special Use Permits.
Section 110 – Authority for Special Use Permits
When a Special Use Permit is required by this Code, said permit may be granted at the discretion of the Board of Adjustment. A Special Use Permit is not the automatic right of any applicant. The Board shall consider all the factors relating to the proposed sign and whether such sign will adversely affect public health, safety and welfare.
Current Applicant Use of Comprehensive Sign Plan Process
1. To establish specific design standards (colors, style, lighting, height, number, etc.) for their development that are more detailed, and typically more restrictive, than those prescribed by the City Code. This use of the Comprehensive Sign Plan process is a technique to give a development’s private signage requirements, as normally set forth in their covenants, equal force of City Code.
2. In addition to establishment of a separate set of design requirements the Comprehensive Sign Plan process is also often used to obtain a variance from the standard sign code provisions regarding the number, height and/or size of signs allocated to a development. These variances typically involve the free-standing/detached signs although they could apply to attached wall signage as well.
Alternatives for Processing of Comprehensive Sign Plans
1. Process Comprehensive Sign Plans in conjunction with a Special Use Permit that requires review and approval by the Board of Adjustment.
(Note: this process could be used until the new revised sign code is in place at which time its’ appropriateness can be evaluated given the changes made to the Comprehensive Sign Plan procedures, requirements and application.)
2. Require all Comprehensive Sign Plans to be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission.
3. Split Administrative and Planning Commission Review
a) Allow Comprehensive Sign Plans, which do not involve variances from the standard sign code provisions, to be reviewed and decided administratively by planning staff. This alternative would have a provision that allowed Planning and Development Director to refer the application to the Planning Commission for review in instances where the Comprehensive Sign Plan was determined to be more appropriately reviewed at that level due to the nature, complexity or scope of the proposal.
b) Require Comprehensive Sign Plans which involve a variance from the standard sign code provisions to be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission.
4. Allow Comprehensive Sign Plans to be reviewed and decided administratively by planning staff. This alternative would have a provision that allowed Planning and Development Director to refer the application to the Planning Commission (or alternatively the Board of Adjustment) for review in instances where the Comprehensive Sign Plan was determined to be more appropriately reviewed at that level due to the nature, complexity or scope of the proposal.
Director Tice stated this agenda item is a policy discussion item, not an application. He informed the Board that they can make a decision tonight or they can ponder the issue and discuss it further at the next meeting; the issue is not time sensitive. Director Tice briefly overviewed the above handout with the Board Members. He noted that he would like to bring together our practice and the code requirements for the review and approval of the comprehensive sign plans.
Director Tice informed the Board that the sign code is in the process of being rewritten, and hopefully it will be finished by the end of this year.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow asked Director Tice if he had a preference of the alternatives for processing of comprehensive sign plans. .
Director Tice replied his preference would be #3. The reason he gave was that we would not require a public hearing unless one is needed. Also, some of the request could be done administratively which is more efficient. He feels the Planning Commission is the better body to hear these request, since the Planning Commission considers the Major Site Plan (MSP), and the signage is a major component for a shopping center design. Director Tice commented currently the process we have separates these two issues and he feels it would be better to have one Board look at both of the designs.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow agreed with Director Tice. He questioned if there would be any recourse for the citizen to go past the decision.
Director Tice stated the city zone code states that any decision that the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Director makes is appealable to the Board of Adjustment and they have the authority to over-ride his decision or any of the planning staff’s decisions.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow questioned if this is something they will need to place on the next agenda.
Director Tice stated the Board can make a motion tonight or it can be tabled to provide additional time to review the proposal.
Member Badger commented that for those that do not involve variances, he does not understand why we do not encourage more businesses to have an easier “plan of attack” then to go through these “hoops”. Member Badger stated he agrees with Director Tice on implementing #3.
Member Garcia made a motion to move forward with sections 3a and 3b of the
“Alternatives for Processing of Comprehensive Sign Plans”. Member Zeibak seconded the motion.
The following roll call vote was recorded:
Member Badger Aye
Member Hernandez Aye
Member Zeibak Aye
Member Garcia Aye
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow Aye
The motion passed 5 – 0.
VI. Call to the Public:
There were no comments received from the public.
VII. Reports by Officers:
City Staff did not have any items to report.
VIII. Adjournment:
Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow called for adjournment at 6:52 p.m.
Submitted this 15th day of June, 2010 by Melanie Podolak, Administrative Assistant to the Casa Grande Board of Adjustment, subject to the Board’s approval.
Approved this ____ day of _________, 2010 by the Casa Grande Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Vangilder
