Board of Adjustment Meeting - December 16, 2020: Variance for Harl Industrial Center

The Tempe Board of Adjustment met on December 16, 2020, via WebEx due to COVID-19 protocols. The board considered two agenda items: approval of previous meeting minutes and a variance request to increase building height from 35 to 58 feet for the Harl Industrial Center at 6840 South Harl Avenue. The board approved the minutes and granted the variance by a 5-2 vote.

Consent Calendar

• The board unanimously approved the August 26, 2020 meeting minutes (6-0, with Board Member Miller abstaining).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Flossie Miller, representing property across the street, opposed the variance. She expressed concerns that a 58-foot wall would block views of South Mountain and potentially decrease property values, and also raised concerns about truck traffic and compliance with no-parking signs. She requested assurances regarding truck parking.
• Three comment cards were submitted in support: from Timothy C. Lewis (owner of company across the street), James Harper (owner of property to the north), and Darrell Burton (supported for job creation). Additionally, Noel Grunham, representing the property owner's representative, expressed support.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation (Jason Morris, Withey Morris PLC): Morris argued that the site’s 12-foot grade fall from west to east creates a special circumstance. The existing office building is obsolete for modern industrial use, which requires a 32-foot clear height. Because the City measures building height from the curb on Harl, the grade effectively reduces the allowable height. The property is zoned GID but lies outside the Southwest Tempe Overlay District, which permits 60-foot heights for properties south of Mineral Road. The requested 58 feet will allow construction of two warehouse buildings totaling 350,000 square feet. Morris emphasized that the topography and overlay boundary are not self-imposed, citing case law (Pawn First) that knowledge of a condition does not make it a self-created hardship. He also noted that outreach to neighbors yielded letters of support.
• Staff Presentation (Karen Stovall, Senior Planner): Staff confirmed the zoning and overlay boundaries, noting that the overlay likely stopped at Mineral Road due to residential zoning east of the Highline Canal. Staff found that the topography creates a special circumstance, and strict application of the 35-foot limit would permit only 26 feet of usable height, less than the 32-foot industrial standard. Staff recommended approval subject to one stipulation (detailed in the report). Staff clarified that a neighborhood meeting was not required because the site is not within 600 feet of residential use.
• Board Questions and Debate:
  • Vice Chair Frazy asked about neighborhood outreach. The applicant responded that letters of support were received and a call was held with the eastern neighbor.
  • Board Member Confer asked if the special circumstance is self-imposed given the applicant’s awareness of the topography and lack of ownership. Staff replied that the circumstances exist regardless of the applicant.
  • Board Member Watson expressed concern about a two-thirds height increase and argued that the site could serve other uses without a variance.
  • Board Member Miller questioned whether the site modification required for the applicant’s intended use constitutes a self-imposed hardship and stated the variance does not meet the test.
  • Board Member Collins noted that the property to the north is already a warehouse, supporting the industrial use.
  • Chair Lyon offered his opinion as a registered architect that a 32-foot clear height is standard and that the overlay boundary is an arbitrary line; he supported the variance.
  • Board Member Baker argued that any future developer would face the same issue, and staff confirmed the circumstances are not self-imposed.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Approve Variance: Made by Board Member Baker, seconded by Board Member Collins.
• Vote: Passed 5-2. Voting aye: Confer, Frazy, Collins, Baker, Lyon. Voting nay: Watson, Miller.
• Next Steps: The board’s next scheduled meeting is January 27, 2021 (agenda not yet set).
• The variance allows a maximum building height of 58 feet, to be refined through the development plan review process.