Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 7/13/2000MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2000 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson, Ron Piceno, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Drew Gayle Laureta Ann Ransom Ron Piceno, Chairperson Gordon Cheniae, Vice Chairperson BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Gitelson Robert Koehler CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Susan Hacker, Planner Teresa Halverson, Planner Nan Robinson, Recording Secretary Linda Graham, Recording Secretary Chairperson Piceno began the meeting by explaining that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi- judicial body made up of volunteers appointed by the City Council. The Board hears requests for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and appeals to certain decisions made by the Planning Director. The Board considers each request on its own merits and bases its decision on the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision is final unless appealed to the City Council or through Superior Court. The Chairperson noted that Board Members Richard Gitelson and Robert Koehler were absent. Mr. Jacobs introduced members of staff. As the first order of business, Chairperson Piceno called for approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2000 regular meeting. The meeting minutes were approved as written. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 Chairperson Piceno called for Business From the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Piceno asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-06 REQUEST: A request by Abe Garcia to allow a patio cover to encroach 6.5 feet into a 10 -foot side yard setback in an SR -12 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. The property is located at the corner of Monte Lindo and 690' Avenue (6905 W. Monte Lindo). Staff contact: Charles Beck (Cholla District). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-08 REQUEST: A request by Diane Schwarz to approve a variance to allow a freestanding block wall 4.5 ft. in height and 30 ft. long within the front yard. The property is zoned R1-6 (Single Family Residential) located within Thunderbird Palms Unit Four Subdivision on the southeast corner of Eugie and 56th Avenue, at 5549 West Eugie Avenue. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Sahuaro District). Mr. Jacobs stated that there were two requests for continuances. A letter was received from the applicant requesting that case ZV-00-06 be continued until the August 10, 2000 Board of Adjustment Hearing. Boardmember Cheniae made a MOTION to continue. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Jacobs stated that the applicant has made a request for continuance of ZV-00-08 until the August 10, 2000 Board of Adjustment Hearing. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to CONTINUE. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairperson Piceno stated that the purpose of a public hearing is to provide interested parties the opportunity to present testimony for the Board's Consideration. An affirmative vote of four Board members is required to pass a motion. He then explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Piceno called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: APPLICATION NO.: ZV-99-27 REQUEST: A variance request by Tim Henrickson for TDH Investments to allow side setbacks of 43 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required and lot coverage of 20% where 10% is the maximum July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 5826 West Mercer Lane. Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Sahuaro District). (CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 11, 2000 HEARING) Susan Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all four of the required findings. Mr. Kenneth Gilbert, 5820 West Palo Verde, representing Mr. Tim Hendrickson for Desert Development and Design, began his presentation by stating he said he was familiar with the custom home that his company was building across the street. He said the company's feeling that construction of this house will not detract from the neighborhood but will enhance the neighborhood as opposed to a vacant lot. Boardmember Drew referred to the west wall along the property and asked what was the set back between the driveway and the wall. Mr. Gilbert said he believed it to be twenty feet. Boardmember Drew said the driveway was twenty feet and asked how far away from the property line is the driveway. Mr. Gilbert said the driveway appeared to be 20 feet 8 inches off the back of the back of the proposed garage. Boardmember Drew said that if you looked at the line and followed it parallel to the end of the page, identified as the right side of the driveway, it would appear to be at the twenty foot line and asked the applicant if he was correct in his interpretation. He asked how far off the property line would the twenty foot driveway be. Mr. Gilbert said it appeared to be twenty feet, eight inches. Mr. Jacobs estimated five feet between the edge of the driveway to the lot line. Boardmember Drew asked if there was a driveway through the RV gate to the back of the garage and was it paved. Mr. Gilbert said he would assume that since the house the company is building across the street has a paved driveway, this project would include a paved driveway. Chairperson Piceno asked if there were any other questions from the Board to the applicant. He asked that the record show that the questions he had two months ago had since been answered. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4 There were no other questions. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-27. Boardmember Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-05 REQUEST: A request by Toolcraft of Phoenix to approve a variance to reduce the required side setback from 15 feet to 0 feet in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The site is a .51 acre parcel located at 7611 North 74th Avenue. Staff contact: Teresa Halverson (Ocotillo District). Teresa Halverson presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request met findings 1, 2, and 4. It meets finding 3 if the Board determines this variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Ms. Tamera Caraway, Hunt & Caraway Architects, 7145 N 57th Drive, Glendale, stated the applicant has submitted this application due to the history that has been established where approximately 40% of the lots do have reduced to 0 feet setbacks. The applicant currently has an office on Carol Avenue, a few lots away with a facility that includes 5,000 square feet of warehouse, tool and die shop, and approximately 1,000 square feet of offices. Due to the growth, the applicant needs more floor area. When the property was purchased, the setbacks were not in place. The applicant's intent to meet all the other requirements of the City of Glendale. In response to a question from Vice -Chair Cheniae, Ms. Caraway said the property was purchased in 1989. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant was building another warehouse and not a tool and die shop. Ms. Caraway said the building, other than the office space, would be a warehouse. It is planned for the tool and die operation. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Ms. Caraway said yes it would include a manufacturing shop. Boardmember Laureta asked if the applicant had received comment from the Ideal Wood Products regarding the square footage. She stated that the company has a lot the same size but was not allowed to build the similar type building and asked for a clarification. Ms. Caraway said she didn't know the particular situation or what the FAR requirements were at that time. She said she had faxed the representative the information on the North Grand Employment Center FAR requirements. She suggested that they contact the City of Glendale if July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 they had any other questions. She stated she had not received any comments and could only assume his concerns were addressed. Her final comment was that they would follow every requirement that the City of Glendale. All property owners in the area had been contacted. She stated the company had complied to the highest level and the owner would like to construct the building so he can move into the larger facility. Mr. Jacobs stated that you can't always compare floor area ratio or building size on two lots because other development issues are frequently involved. Vice -Chair Cheniae said that this request is similar to a previous request for 0 setback that he had seen built in this park between 1985-1993 when the ordinance standards changed. He added this board had approved similar requests on three different times from 1996-1999. He said he would support this variance request. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-05. Boardmember Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Laureta said she had viewed the area and could see no problem with the variance and since there had been no response from the adjacent properties, she saw no concern. Boardmember Ransom said she liked the fact that the owner didn't request a rear yard setback. Boardmember Drew said this was similar to other variances that had passed and he could see no problem. Vice -Chair Cheniae said he agreed with the other Board members and could see no problems. Chairperson Piceno said he agreed with the Board members, specifically Vice Chair Cheniae, that the City has set forth substantial precedent in previous variance requests. He stated he was in favor of approving the request as stated. Chairperson Piceno called for a roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED UNANIOUSLY. CASES ZV-99-28, ZV-00-10, ZV-00-11, ZV-00-12, AND ZV-00-13 WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER IN ONE PUBLIC HEARING BUT SEPARATE MOTIONS WERE TAKEN. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-99-28 REQUEST: A request by Mel Smith to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple -Residence) zoning district on a 9038 square feet parcel. The site is located approximately 150 feet south of the southeast corner of 61st July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 Avenue and Glendale Avenue (6829 North 61" Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-10 REQUEST: A request by Mel Smith to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple -Residence) zoning district on a 9038 square feet parcel. The site is located approximately 200 feet south of the southeast corner of 61st Avenue and Glendale Avenue (6825 North 61St Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-11 REQUEST: A request by Mel Smith to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple -Residence) zoning district on a 9038 square feet parcel. The site is located approximately 150 feet south of the southeast corner of 61st Avenue and Lamar Road (6735 North 61" Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-12 REQUEST: A request by Mel Smith to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple -Residence) zoning district on a 9000 square feet parcel. The site is located approximately 150 feet south of the southwest corner of 60th Avenue and Glendale Avenue (6830 North 60th Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-13 REQUEST: A request by Mel Smith to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple -Residence) zoning district on a 9000 square feet parcel. The site is located approximately 150 feet south of the southeast corner of 60th Avenue and Glendale Avenue (6833 North 60th Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). Susan Hacker presented the applications, reviewing the sites and the requests. She said the lots currently do not meet current minimum width standards of 60 feet for the R-3 zoning district. The development standards for the R-3 district would be out of character with the size of the lot and the existing residential development in the area. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would allow only a ten foot wide residence on any of the parcels. Most of the single family and multi -family development in this neighborhood does not meet the current R-3 zoning district setbacks. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt that all five requests appeared to meet all the findings. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7 Boardmember Drew said that a property he looked at in the area had a set of apartments on the south side of the property and wasn't sure of the case number. Ms. Hacker said she believed that property to be ZV-00-11, located at 6735 N 61St Avenue. Boardmember Drew asked where the five-foot setback would be. Ms. Hacker said they had not gotten to the specifics as to which side will have the ten -foot or the five-foot setback. The Planning Department will review the plans for each parcel in the Design Review process and make sure the setback locations are appropriate. Boardmember Drew asked what the City's criteria is as to what side they will request the ten -foot or the five-foot setback. Mr. Jacobs said they would look at the total separation between residential units and existing setbacks on adjacent properties. In residential zoning, the City would try to maintain the fifteen - foot setback between residences when possible. Boardmember Drew asked if the Board agrees to allow the five and the ten -foot setback, would the City and the Planning Department determine what side the included setbacks would be on. Mr. Jacobs said that part of the design review process would be an evaluation of that issue. He reminded the Board that this is a variance request to allow the width of the residential unit that is being proposed for the various lots. Boardmember Cheniae asked for clarification on the dates and standards for a protest versus a letter of opposition and how those two items differ. He asked for clarification on what is the difference between a letter of opposition and a formal protest in the Planning process. He asked what policy guidelines does the Planning staff have in regard to accepting protests at the time of posting. Mr. Jacobs said that with regard to a variance request, there is no difference or standing between the two terms, letter of opposition and formal protest. In response to a question Boardmember Cheniae asked about a time limit on the submission of a letter of opposition or a formal protest based on a policy guideline. Mr. Rick Flaeen said there is no time limit or Statue of Limitations on submitting a protest. Mr. Mel Smith, applicant, stated that he agreed with staff that the variance requests meet the required findings. Boardmember Drew said he had a written letter from Mr. Smith stating that the Police Department and the Fire Department both were anxious to get rid of infill lots and asked the applicant what he knew about this. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8 Mr. Smith said that he had spoken to individual members of both departments and they said that vacant property in this particular area has been a problem for both in regard to fires and alcoholics and drug persons hanging out on the empty lots. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew asking if this was a statement from the Police Department and the Fire Department themselves or from individual members, Mr. Smith said the statements were made by individual members. Ms. Natalie Stahl, 5945 West Glendale, neighborhood leader for Orchard Glen Partnership, stated the biggest issue the Association has is the population density. She said the neighborhood is the most densely populated square mile in the City of Glendale with approximately 9,000 people with the standard being 4,000-5,000 people. She said they also have the highest crime rate square mile in the area which brings concerns with multiple dwellings being built on single lots. She said the Association does realize the zoning is for multi residential, but we do have some concerns with the narrow setbacks we see a lot of garbage, drugs, and weed overgrowth. By putting that many buildings in the area, the area is lending itself to a high code compliance and sanitation problem, and crime problems also. Ms. Stahl said that in an 1/8 square mile, there are 168 inhabited structures, 27 of those are owner occupied which makes it 16% owner occupied and 84% renter occupied. Those 168 structures are on 118 properties and using the average of four people per household, there are approximately 672 people in a 1/8 mile area. In response to a question that Boardmember Cheniae asked, Ms. Stahl said that of the 168 properties in the area, she represents five or less owners and that there are mostly renters in the area and they will not take a stand on an issue. Boardmember Laureta asked what Ms. Stahl would suggest the applicant do with the lots. Ms. Stahl said the neighborhood would not be opposed to one single-family house on each of these properties. Boardmember Laureta asked if that would apply whether it was owner occupied or a rental and Ms. Stahl said that a single house could be at some point be owner occupied, but if there were two houses, they would always be rentals. Boardmember Laureta said she was not sure of the logic of that reasoning and asked if the two structures were not duplexes. Ms. Stahl said they were not attached but one has a street entrance and one has an alley entrance. Boardmember Laureta asked Ms. Stahl if she felt, based on an alley entrance, there could be a detriment to ownership and Ms. Stahl replied in her opinion, yes. Ms. Stahl said she would prefer to have one house built on each lot. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 9 Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Stahl if she understood the Board is looking at the property and not at whether it is owner occupied or a rental. Ms. Stahl said she understood and that her concern is with the density and that for the record, the staff report is in error, the proposed floor plan is a four bedroom and the request would place two of the units on one property. Ms. Hacker said there was an error in the staff report that was found and the proposed units are four bedroom and the staff hasn't addressed those issues yet and thus far have been concerned with the set back issues on those properties. Boardmember Drew asked if Ms. Stahl got her crime statistics from the City Police Department. Ms. Stahl said she did. Mr. James Stahl, 5945 West Glendale Avenue, said he wanted to add a couple things. He said that with the setbacks being five feet on one side and ten feet on the other, this would push the unit right up against another property line on every property except one. The vagrant problem in this area is not just on empty lots. It is everywhere, and we wake up every morning with people sleeping in our back driveway and laying along the fence on the front of the house. He said with the proposed setbacks, there would be more area to stay secluded and hide. In response to Boardmember Drew's question about what would Mr. Stahl prefer these properties be used for, Mr. Stahl said the Association had looked at several possibilities through the Neighborhood Partnership Program. They had checked into pocket parks and would rather see vacant lots than another rental property in our area. Boardmember Drew asked if Mr. Stahl knew as fact, that this was going to be rental property. Mr. Stahl said the property could possibly be owner occupied but with two entrances, one in the alley and one facing the street, the probability would be a rental. The alley is already full of potholes and garbage and by adding more traffic to the alleyways, you are adding a maintenance and a liability issue to the City. Boardmember Drew agreed that the alley is full of potholes and the other neighbors use it as a parking lot in addition to dumping garbage. Ms. Terry Barrera, 6617 North 59th Drive, said she is opposed to a rental property and would like to see one house that is owner occupied. Boardmember Drew asked what would Ms. Barrera would suggest the City do with the five vacant properties and she responded she would like to see pocket parks for the children or a police substation. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 10 Mr. John Barrera, 6617 North 59th Drive, said he is opposed to the variance. He said out of the entire block, there are only seven owner occupied residences. There is a lot of traffic problems with cars parked all over and in front of the apartments and we feel this is a problem with all the children living there. He added he is totally against this projected use of the properties. Ms. Rosilyn Miller, 6326 West Lamar Road, said she is concerned with the density problem and that there are too many people in the area. The alleys are used as streets and they are not improved and not meant to be the access for the house. This is not the direction her neighborhood would like to go and she stated she was opposed. Ms. Karleen Miller, 6326 West Lamar Road, said she was in attendance to support Ms. Stahl and the Association and stated she was opposed to the variance. Ms. Roberta Miller, 6326 West Lamar Road, said she is not in favor of the variance. Mr. Ray Aguilera, 6740 North 61St Avenue, said he is not opposed to Mr. Smith building and improving the lots but is opposed to the increase in density. He would like to see the neighborhood and Mr. Smith come to a compromise and have a single building on each lot. He noted that there was a Habitat for Humanity house built on 60th Avenue that is a single detached home. In response to Boardmember Laureta, Mr. Aguilera stated the Habitat house has an alley entrance. Boardmember Ransom asked if it was possible to find a compromise. Mr. Aguilera said it is a question of economics. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing. Mr. Smith said the reason the project involves two detached units, rather than one building was at the suggestion of the City of Glendale. The two detached units with access from the street and from the alley was decided in preliminary design review. He said he is willing to work with the City and will make changes if they will work. This is R-3 property and could allow four to five one bedroom units but he believes the two four bedroom units proposed, actually reduce density and has been previously built two different times in the neighborhood. In response to Boardmember Drew, Mr. Smith said he purchased the properties in the last eighteen months. In response to Boardmember Laureta, Mr. Smith said the units would be fenced, most likely in chain link. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 11 Boardmember Laureta said she would like to clarify that one unit would have an alley access only and the other a street access. Mr. Smith said he would prefer not to have it that way but staff recommended it would look better from the street and he is not opposed to put the parking in the front or the back. In response to Boardmember Laureta, Mr. Smith said the front and back will be paved as according to standards and one covered parking space per unit would be required. In response to Boardmember Drew, Mr. Smith said there would be a fence separating the two back yards and each unit would have the same address with an A and B distinguishing the two. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing. Boardmember Chenaie made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-28. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Laureta said she viewed the area and has a great deal of empathy for the neighbors, however, as a member of the Board, her role is to adhere to what we are to consider. Most of what we have heard tonight is not relevant to the Board's decision and sees this action as a positive impact on the neighborhood. Boardmember Ransom said she is very impressed with the neighborhood and what they are doing. She said she is also concerned with the density in the area but the law supports the variance. Boardmember Piceno asked Mr. Flaaen to clarify that the Board has no jurisdiction over the future use of the property. Mr. Flaaen said the Board of Adjustment cannot take action that affects the use or the zoning of the property and is specifically limited to development standards such as the building setbacks. Boardmember Drew said he has sat on the Board for two years and has seen the Board do a lot of five feet and ten feet setbacks. All have been infill property and all have been single family residences on the lot. He said he has a problem with giving the setback with two houses even though it is an infill property which should be developed. He said that when Mr. Smith bought the property eighteen months ago, the current zoning was in place and he knew what the setback requirements were when he purchased property. Since the applicant knew what the zoning setbacks were, and then made this request, he didn't feel he could support the variance. Boardmember Cheniae said he had also inspected the properties and the testimony is consistent with what he saw and would not argue with anyone that there exists a social problem in the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 12 neighborhood. Like Boardmember Laureta, he said he had to go back to the four very defining legal criteria that this Board is charged to make the decision as it relates to granting a variance or not granting a variance. He must vote yes to approve the variance because he agrees with staff that the criteria has been met. Chairperson Piceno said he agreed with the comments of Boardmember Laureta and Vice -Chair Cheniae. The Board has a narrow test with respect to granting variance requests and the four findings have been met. When Mr. Smith acquired the property is of no consequence so he would vote yes for the variance request. Chairperson Piceno said he would restate the motion and have a roll call vote. Chairperson Piceno called for the roll call vote on ZV-99-28. The MOTION PASSED with a vote of 4-1 with Boardmember Drew voting Nay. Boardmember Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-10. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for the roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED with a vote of 4-1 with Boardmember Drew voting Nay. Boardmember Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-11. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for the roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED with a vote of 4-1 with Boardmember Drew voting Nay. Boardmember Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-12. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for a roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED with a vote of 4-1 with Boardmember Drew voting Nay. Boardmember Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-13. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for a roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED with a vote of 4-1 with Boardmember Drew voting Nay. Chairperson Piceno stated that anyone wishing to appeal any action, may appeal to the Planning Department Staff. July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 13 Chairperson Piceno asked if there were any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Piceno asked for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Jacobs said he wanted to welcome the new member, Ann Ransom, to the Board of Adjustment. Boardmember Cheniae said he would not be at the August meeting. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Linda Graham, Recording Secretary