Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBA.1992.0512.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAY 12, 1992 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment was convened and called to order by Vice-Chairman Paul Kolwaite at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 12, 1992 in the Town Magistrate Court located at 16836 E. Palisades Blvd., Building C, Fountain Hills, Arizona. ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment: Vice-Chairman Paul Kolwaite, Boardmember Earl Stavely, and Boardmember Donald Andrews. Also present were Associate Planner, Loras Rauch; and Administrative Assistant, Joan McCartney. AGENDA ITEM #3 - PLEDGE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION After the pledge to the flag, the invocation was given by Scott Von Lanken, Pastor of the First Assembly of God, Fountain Hills, Arizona. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992 Nor Boardmember Stavely made a MOTION that the minutes of April 7, 1992 be accepted as written. Boardmember Andrews SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - VARIANCE #92-07 - FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 16239 E. IRONWOOD DRIVE Mrs. Rauch read the "Findings of Fact" from the Staff Report on Variance #V92-07. Boardmember Stavely asked Mrs. Rauch if there would be a need for a variance if it were not for the ten (10) foot wide strip of the applicant's property along Ironwood Drive being dedicated as stipulated by the Town Engineer. Mrs. Rauch answered in the negative. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked if a ten (10) foot high retaining wall was an acceptable height for a retaining wall. Mrs. Rauch stated that it was acceptable. Boardmember Andrews asked if there were plans to construct a frontage road along Fountain Hills Blvd. and was told by Mrs. Rauch that there were no plans as such. Mrs. Rauch explained that Fountain Hills Blvd. would probably become a divided roadway, similar to Saguaro. Mrs. Rauch went on to add that no ingress or egress into the church's property off of Fountain Hills Blvd. was planned because of the increased traffic hazards created by such. 1 Pastor Scott Von Lanken explained that originally a right-turn only egress had been planned for Fountain Hills Blvd. but because of the increased traffic hazards, had been moved to Ironwood Drive which then resulted in a need for a variance to the setback requirements to preserve the hillside area. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite expressed his concern for cars pulling up along Ironwood Drive letting out passengers and the traffic problems incurred by such. It was explained by Mr. Dave Maribel, Architect for the project, that as it was designed, the main entrances to the church facilities were on the parking lot side and not on the Ironwood side. Boardmember Stavely made a MOTION to approve the variance based on the Findings of Fact. Boardmember Andrews SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite informed the public and the applicant that anyone in opposition to the variance approval had thirty (30) days in which to appeal the decision with the Superior Court of Maricopa County. AGENDA ITEM #6 - VARIANCE #92-08 - NEW AMERICAN BUILDERS 10801 BUFFALO DRIVE Mrs. Rauch read the "Findings of Fact" from the Staff Report on Variance #V92-08. Mrs. Rauch explained that the minimum achievable driveway slope was twenty percent (20%) and that a variety of solutions had been attempted by the applicant and Town Staff to get the slope to that percentage. Boardmember Stavely asked how long the limit of twenty percent (20%) slope on driveways had been in effect. Mrs. Rauch explained that the Engineering Department had ce, established the policy of requiring a flat pad in front of the garage and limiting the degree of slope of a driveway to twenty percent (20%) about (1) year ago because of the concern that there would not be a flat pad in front of the garage floor on which a driver could stop before going into the garage. Boardmember Andrews asked if there was a standard which stipulated how far from an intersection a driveway could be constructed and was told by Mrs. Rauch that the driveway could not encroach into the vision safety triangle but that no other standards existed to her knowledge. Boardmember Andrews expressed his concern about where the driveway enters on the street because of the potential problems with street traffic at the intersection. Boardmembers Andrews suggested curving the driveway further to the north on Puma Drive which would also decrease the degree of slope of the driveway. Mrs. Rauch stated that if the driveway was turned and entered Puma Drive further north, the driveway would be even less than a ninety (90) degree angle to the street than what is depicted on the site plan. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked about any future plans for Buffalo Drive and Puma Drive. Mrs. Rauch explained that there were plans to pave both streets and install a stop sign at the intersection. Mr. Dave Montgomery, the Engineer for the applicant, explained that he had worked with Randy Harrell, Town Engineer, and Susanna Struble, Contract Engineer for the Town, and that they had oaraw 2 looked at turning the driveway further north on Puma Drive. He went on to say that there would be some difficulty turning right on Puma drive because of the less than ninety (90) degree angle to the street that would be created by the change to the driveway. Mr. Montgomery stated that if the driveway was changed, a steeper bank cut would need be to be made which would cause more problems. Boardmember Andrews stated that a bigger safety problem would be created by having the driveway so close to the intersection. He went on to say that cars backed up at the stop sign would make it difficult entering or existing the driveway along with the traffic hazard caused by cars cutting the corner of the intersection turning north from Buffalo Drive onto Puma Drive. Boardmember Andrews suggested a shift of approximately twenty (20) feet toward the north of the driveway on Puma Drive. He went on to say that the vision safety triangle at the intersection was an absolute minimum and was calculated for flat terrain. Mr. Montgomery stated that the driveway would be located at a higher elevation than the intersection allowing full view of the intersection from the driveway. Boardmember Stavely expressed his concern for vegetation growth that would obstruct the field of vision from the driveway. Boardmember Andrews asked for the distance from the curb to the driveway as proposed and was told by Mr. Montgomery that it was approximately thirty-five (35) feet. Boardmember Andrews made a MOTION to approve the variance with the stipulation that the owner work with Town Staff find a more equitable solution for the location of the driveway. Boardmember Stavely SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Vice-Chairman informed the applicant and the public that anyone in opposition to the approval of the variance had thirty (30) day in which to file an appeal with the Superior Court of Maricopa County. AGENDA ITEM #8 - ADJOURNMENT -4100 Boardmember Andrews made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Stavely SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT / ; . By: �` icC� fit. Paul Kolwaite, Vice-Chairman ArrEST:C iV/t - 1 l (2.z( Joan McCartney, Administrative Assistant 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment held on the 12th day of May, 1992. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 13th day of May, 1992. Joan McCartney, Administrative/Assistant L fir.• 4 STAFF REPORT MAY 12, 1992 CASE NO.: V92-07 ADDRESS: 16239 E. Ironwood Drive aka Lot 8, Blk. 2, Plat 423 REQUESTED ACTION: Requesting a variance to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback to thirty (30) feet. DESCRIPTION: Owner: First Assembly of God Applicant: First Assembly of God Existing Zoning: R1-35 , Single-Family Residential Existing Land Use: Undeveloped residential lot Size: 3.46 acres SURROUNDING LAND USE and ZONING: North: Existing single-family home; Zoned "R1-35" South: Existing single-family home; Zoned "R1-35" East: Existing duplexes; Zoned "R-2" West: Existing single-family home; Zoned "R1-35" CODE REQUIREMENT: ARTICLE VII. (R1-35) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT 35,000 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT 7.4 Yard Regulations. The required yards are as follows: (1) Front Yard: (a) There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than forty (40) feet. 7.5 Intensity of Use Regulations. The intensity of use regulations are as follows: (4) Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be twenty (20%) percent of the lot area. r.rr�