Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 9/8/2016MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COTTNCIL CHAMBERS BIIILDING CONFERENCE ROOM 8.3 TIIURSDAY, SEPTEMBER g, 2016 4:fi) P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at approximately 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Board members Blakely and Martinez,Yicn Chairperson Feiner, and Chairperson Vescio were present. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Board members Zana and Dietzman were absent and excused, and Board member Crowley was absent. CITY STAFF Tabitha Pttry, Assistant Planning Director, Russ Romney, Deputy City Attorney, Martin Martell, Planner, and Diana Figuero4 Recording Secretary, were present. APPROVAL OF TI{E MINUTES Chairperson Vescio called for approval of the July 14, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes. Board member Martinez made a motion to approve the July 1412016 Regular Meeting minutes as written. Vice Chairperson Feiner seconded the motion, which was approved unanimousty with Board member Blakely abstaining as she had not been in attendance. WITTIDRA WALS AND CONTINUANCES Chairperson Vescio asked staff if there were any r€quests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. PT.JBLIC I{EARING ITEMS Chairperson vescio called for staffs presentation on the public hearing items. l. VAR15-07: A variance request by Wancho's Project, on behalf of Raynaldo Ozuna, to reduce the east side yard setback from the required twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet and to reduce the west side yard setback from the required twenty (20) feet to six and ahalf (6%) feet in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) 7-oningDistrict. This will allow for the rebuilding of a severely damaged home and allow for livable additions to the front and back of the home. The site is located southwest of the southwest corner of 59th and Glendale Avenues (6344 West lamar Road) and is in the Ocotillo District. StaffContact: Martin Martell, Planner. September 8, 2016 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page2 Mr. Martin Martell, Planner, stated this was a request by Wancho's Project, on behalf of Raynaldo Ozun4 to reduce the east side yard setback from the required twenty feet to five feet and to reduce the west side yard setback from the required twenty feet to six and a half feet in the R-3 7-oningDistrict. He said this will allow for the rebuilding of a severely damaged home and allow for livable additions to the front and back of the home. The site is located southwest of the southwest corner of 59th and Glendale Avenues and is in the Ocotillo District. He said the applicant wishes to rebuild a home that was damaged by vandalism. He added that after restoration, the applicant also wishes to add livable additions to the front and rear of the home that will be flush with the east and west walls of the reconstructed home. Mr. Martell explained that the property is located in the Orchard Addition Subdivision southwest of the southwest corner of 59ft & Glendale Avenues. He indicated that the property to the north is a mobile home park zoned R-3 and the property to the east is a single family home zoned R-3. He added that the property to the south is a church zoned Rl-6 Single Residence and the properties to the west are single family homes zoned Rl-6. He noted that the majority of the land uses to the east and west are residential single family homes. The land use to the south is the Renuevo Church and the property to the north is the Westview Mobile Home/RV Park. Mr. Martell stated the Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to granting a variance. Each finding is presented below along with staffs analysis. Mr. Martell reviewed staffs findings. l. There are special circumstances/conditions applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner; He said the 66.5 foot lot with the cunent 20 foot perimeter setbacks only allows for the reconstruction of a home with additions that will only b 26.5 feet wide. He added the surrounding neighborhood is developed with a variety of side-yard building setbacks many of which are less than the required 20 foot perimeter building setbacks found in this zoning district. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the T.oning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in tbe same zoning district; He said the strict application of the curr€nt Tnning Ordinance would only permit a home to be r@onstructed to a width of 26.5 feet, which would be unrealistic fora habiable home. 3. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships. He said the requested reduction of the side yard building setbacks is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property's hardship and will allow for the reconstruction of a home with new r"*o*oli3ff*,',ji,"L[ page 3 additions. He added the reconstructed home with new additions will meet the required 20 footfr'ont and rear building setbacks established for this zoning district. 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrlmental effect on the property, adjoiningpropertx' surrounding neighborhoods or the city in general. He said this requested reduction of the side yard building setbacks is consistent with 25 percent of the properties along this street that have the same side yard setbacks as the subject property. Granting this request will allow for the reconstruction of a home to its original state and allow forlivable additions to the front and rear of the residence. Mr. Martell stated the variance request appears to meet all four findings and should be approved. If theBoard decides to grant the variance, it should be subject to the folloiing stipulation listed in the staffreport. He concluded his presentation and stated he was available for quesiions. The stipulation is tistedbelow. l. Development shall be in conformance with the applicant's nan:ative, site plan, and floor plan,dated June 22,2016. chairperson Vescio asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. Chairperson Vescio called for the applicant to make a presentation. The applicant did not wish to speak. Chairperson Vescio opened the public hearing, hearing no one wishing to speak, she closed the publichearing. Chairperson Vescio asked the Board for any further questions or comments. There wel€ none. Based on the facts and evidence presented, Mr. Romney requested a vote from the Board. He read eachfinding and waited as the Board responded. Finding One. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding One. The Boardresponded with a 4-0 vote. Finding Two. Chairperson Vcscio called for a voice vote on Finding Two. responded with a 4-0 vote. Finding Three. Chairpercon Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Three.responded with a 4-0 vote. The Board The Board Finding Four. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Four. The Boardresponded with a 4-0 vote. ""*o ", ^lili#*,',1i, "1,11Page 4 Mr.Romneyaskedthatifbasedonthefindings,doestheBoardwishtograntvariance@ subject to the stipulations set forth by the Planning Division. Chairperson Vescio called for a motion. BOARD MEMBER BLAKELY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO TIIE STIPULATION NOTED IN THE STATT REPORT. BOARD MEMBER MARTINEZ SECONDED TIIE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED IJNANIMOUSLY. 2. VARI6-08: A variance request by Regency Builders, on behalf of Kathleen Griggs, to . reduce the south side yard building setback from the required twenty (20) feet to six (6) feet in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) 7-oning District, which will allow for the construction of an attached patio cover. The site is located southeast of the southeast comer of 67th and Olive Avenues (10230 North 66tr Avenue) and is in the Barrel District. Staff Contact: Martin Martell, Planner. Mr. Martin Martell, Planner, stated this was a variance request by Regency Builders, on behalf of Kathleen Griggs, to reduce the south side yard building setback from the required twenty feet to six feet in the R-3 7-oning District, which will allow for the construction of an attached patio cover. He said the site is located southeast of the southeast corner of 67s and Olive Avenues and is in the Barrel District. He sated the applicant wishes to build a new patio roof cover that will be attached to the southwest corner ofthe home in the back yard of the property over an existing concrete patio in this same location. Mr. Martell stated that the salmon colored shaded area is the current perimeter building setbacks and the yellow shaded area is the requested 6 foot south side yard building setback. He explained the patio cover will be 276sqnre feet and will be 18'from the rearproperty line, which was originally20'but was recently approved via Administrative Relief and 6' from the south property line, which is the reason for this variance request. He stated that in 1982 the south side yard setback was 6 feet, the north side yard setback was 5 feet, and the rear setback was 15 feet. He noted that the patio will line up with the south wall of the home. He stated the Board of Adjustnrent must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to granting a variance. Each finding is presented below along with staffs analysis. Mr. Martell reviewed staffs findings. I There are special circumstances/conditions applicable to the property including size, shape, topographyr location or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner; He said the 45 foot width of the lot creates a special circumstance not self-imposed by the property owner. He explained that when this subdivision was developed in 1985 homes such as the subject property that are 34 feet in width had required side yard setbacks of six and five feet. r".,o r offlfrl,T,,li,il,[ Page 5 Therefore, the construction of an atached new patio cover would conform to the original six foot south side yard setback and would be flush with the current south wall of the existing home on the subject property. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Znning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district; He stated the strict application of the curr€nt Zoning Ordinance would only permit an attached patio cover that is only five feet wide, which would be unrealistic for an enjoyable shade structure. 3. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships. He said the requested reduction of the side yard building setbacks is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property's hardship and will allow for the construction of a practicat shade structur€. 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, surrounding neighborhoods or the city in general. He said the requested reduction of the south side yard building setback is consistent with other properties along this street. He added that this request will not detrimentally affect any neighboring properties, since the requested side yard building setback will match many of the side yard setbacks found in the neighborhood. Mr. Martell stated the variance request appears to meet all four findings and should be approved. If the Board decides to grant the variance, it should be subject to the following stipulation listed in the staff report. He concluded his presentation and stated he was available for questions. The stipulation is tisted below. l. Development shall be in conformance with the applicant's narrative, site plan, and floor plan, dated May 13,2016. Chairperson Vescio asked if the Board had any questions. Board member Blakely asked if this had an HOA. It was not known. Chairperson Vescio called forthe applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Robert Sneddon, Regency Builders, applicant, stated he had nothing to add and agreed with staffs recommendations. He noted that he had no issues with the HOA. "",,o"roii$if"T,'nli,"tLllPage 6 Board member Blakely commented that the HOA should be notified of the application since the Boardof Adjustment was approving something they might not approve in the neighboihood. Chairperson Vescio countered saying that the HOA was not in theirjurisdiction. She indicated that theBoard of Adjusnnent was charged and limited to only look and review the four findings. Vice ChairFeiner agreed with Board member Blakley. Mr. Romney interjected that the Board of Adjustment was indeed limited by statutory requirements aswell as limited to the four findings only. He reminded the Board that HOA requirements were not undertheir authoriB. He explained that as a Board, all they can do was work with what was in front of them.He added that if the HoA decides not to approve it, they have their own process. Ms. Perry asked if it was possible or even feasible to add a stipulation that before any permits can movefonvard, the applicant will work through the appropriate channels with any afliliated HOA. Mr. Romney said he understood their concerns, however, the Board is very limited by statute and this isgoing outside their jurisdiction and not for the Board of Adjustment to resolve. He added that a notification was sent and only one person showed up and that penon does not reside in Glendale. No other person attended the meeting or provided any concerns. Mr. Romney recommended the Board go into executive session to discuss this issue further. VICE CHAIR FEINER MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. BOARI) MEMBER BLAKELY SECoNDED THE MoTIoN, wHIcH wAs APPRoVED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board voted to go into Executive Session to consult with the attorney about the legal implications ofadding stipulations regarding independent HOA regulations. The Executive Session began'at 4:26 p.m and ended at4:42p.m. The meeting resumed. Chairperson Vescio opened the pubtic hearing. With no one wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Chairperson Vescio asked the Board for any further questions or comments. There were none. Based on the facts and evidence presented, Mr. Romney requested a vote from the Board. He read each finding and waited as the Board responded. Finding One. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding One. The Board responded with a 2-2 (Yice Chairperson Feiner and Board member Blakely voting no). "",0 ", oiiljiT"T,"li'"l,l! PageT Finding Two. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Two. The Board responded with a 22, (Yice Chairperson Feiner and Board member Blakely voting no). tr'inding Three. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Three. The Board responded with a 22, (Yice Chairperson Feiner and Board member Blakely voting no). Finding tr'our. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Four. The Board responded with a 22, (Yice Chairperson Feiner and Board member Blakely voting no). Mr. Romney asked that if based on the findings, does the Board wish to grant variance VARI6-08 subject to the stipulations set forth by the Planning Division. Chairperson Vescio called for a motion. BOARD MEMBER MARTINEZ MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM SUB'BCT TO THE STIPI'LATION NOTED IN THE STATF REPORT. CHAIRPERSON VESCIO SECONDED TIIE MOTION' WHICH wAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. OTTIER BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Chairperson Vescio called for Other Business From The Floor. There was none. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chairperson Vescio called for Planning StaffComments and Suggestions. There was none. BOARD COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chairperson Vescio called for Board Comments and Suggestions. There were none. ADJOURMENT Chairpenon Vescio called for a motion to adjourn. BOARD MEMBER BLAKELY MADE A MOTION TO ADJOI.IRN THE MEETING. VICE CHAIRPERSON FEINER SECONDED TIIE MOTION, WTIICH WAS APPROVEI) I]NANIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. NEXTMEETING: October 13,2016