Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 4/13/2017MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 April 13, 2017 4:OOPM CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Vescio called the meeting to order at approximately 4:06pm ROLL CALL Board members Zarra, Dietzman, Martinez, Fitzer, Wilson, Vice Chairperson Feiner (arrived at 4:11 pm), and Chairperson Vescio were present. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF Tabitha Perry, Assistant Planning Director, Russ Romney, Deputy City Attorney, Thomas Ritz, AICP, Senior Planner, and Alex Shaw, Recording Secretary were present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chairperson Vescio called for approval of the March 9, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Board member Zarra made a motion to approve the March 9, 2017 Regular Meeting minutes as written. Board member Fitzer seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0 with Board member Wilson abstaining as he had not been in attendance. WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES Chairperson Vescio asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chairperson Vescio called for staff's presentation on the public hearing items. 1. VAR16-11: A request by Rebecca Murans, JRC Design, to allow: a greater number of monument signs than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, monument signs of greater height than permitted, directional signs of greater height than permitted, directional signs where the business identification is a greater percentage of the sign area than permitted, directional signs which do not have a base with an aggregate width of at least 50% of the width of the sign, wall signs at locations other than the exterior elevation of the space occupied by the business, additional shingle signs at locations other than what is allowed by code, and to permit 340 square feet of sign area on a building where 334 square feet is presently permitted. The property is zoned C-2 (General Commercial). The site is located north of the northeast corner of Union Hills Drive and 67th Avenue at 18701 North 67th Avenue and is in the Cholla District. Staff Contact: Thomas Ritz, AICP, Senior Planner. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Thomas Ritz, AICP, Senior Planner, stated this was a request by Rebecca Murans of JRC Design, to allow: a greater number of monument signs, monument signs of greater height, directional signs of greater height, directional signs where the business identification is a greater percentage of the sign area, directional signs which do not have a base with an aggregate width of at least 50% of the width of the sign, wall signs at locations other than the exterior elevation of the space occupied by the business than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Additional shingle signs at locations other than what is allowed by code, and to permit 340 square feet of sign area on a building where 334 square feet is presently permitted. He said the property is zoned C-2 and if approved the property owner will install these signs on the medical campus. Mr. Ritz stated that since the last meeting on March 9, 2017, the applicant has not changed or altered the application or provided a lower sign. The applicant desires the same 17 -foot high sign as previously proposed. He noted that as the application is the same as was proposed last month and the determination was made not to distribute a new staff memo. or development booklet. He explained that since this was a continuance, no public notices were given or posted. As a new presentation, the applicant is proposing a new sign phase which is different between daytime and the nighttime appearance. He noted that the city was not in favor of this new proposal. Mr. Ritz stated that staff s recommendations and findings have not changed in support of this. He asked the applicant to make their presentation. Rebecca Murans, JRC Design, stated she was happy to be here once again speaking on this agenda item. She introduced Mr. Stephen Garden, Chief Operating Officer of Abrazo Campus and Hospital. She thanked the Board for letting them present today. She provided a brief summary introducing Arrowhead's processes and innovations. He said Abrazo Hospital Arrowhead Campus is a general medical and surgical hospital in Glendale that opened in 1988. The hospital has 217 beds and survey data for the latest year available shows that the hospital had a total of 13,304 admissions, 10,000 surgeries and delivered between 200 to 300 babies. She explained that the hospital started small but has grown considerably with over 14,000 employees. That being said they still have the same size signs as when they first opened in 1988. She stated their feedback from employees to patients as well as their family members has been to upgrade the signage with larger signs that are more visible and easier to locate the entrances and exits. He asked the Board to reconsider their application and find in their favor. At this time, he would be glad to answer any questions. Ms. Murans provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation along with a booklet. She reiterated the expansion of Abrazo and its continued development in the area. She explained the importance of replacing the ageing signs with improved larger signs with internal lighting that will be very visible in helping patients and family members find the hospital quickly. She noted some of the hardships the hospital has with the street traffic and access ways. As a result, she presented their recommendations showing on the map on where they would like to place the signs to provide a walk way. She also provided an analysis on viewer reaction distance regarding sign height, location and lighting. She discussed the importance of lighting in this area since it's extremely dark at night. In conclusion, she would like to clarify the request and hope the Board agrees that these signs are needed. She explained that Abrazo is the only full service hospital in the area and continually Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 3 growing. She hopes they see that their request is for the benefit of the patients and community that will provide a positive effect in the area. Chairperson Vescio thanked Ms. Murans for her in-depth presentation. She asked Mr. Russ Romney, Deputy City Attorney, if the new application request of light -up signs require a new area notification process. Mr. Romney said that he was not sure. Ms. Murans interjected stating that no changes in illumination have occurred in the lighting packages. Chairperson Vescio thanked Ms. Murans for the clarification. Chairperson Vescio asked for clarification on the location of the 17 -foot sign next to the utility pole. She asked why this was the best location. Ms. Murans noted the location of the sign and explained that they do not own the property on the other side. Chairperson Vescio stated that a major concern at the last meeting was the branding issue. She asked since branding was not an issue, shouldn't the logo move to the bottom of the sign to leave room for more essential messaging. Ms. Murans explained that people typically tend to want to find out where they are and if they have arrived. Mr. Stephen Garden agreed that the campus was a bit confusing and that was a big part of why they want different signage. He explained that in their business, branding is not a necessity as with other businesses. He stated most patients come because of their insurance and proximity. Board member Zarra stated that his initial thoughts have not changed. He noted that if the brand did not really matter, why is it 29% of the sign height. Ms. Murans stated that Abrazo was their registered name and they must declare it. Board member Zarra noted that this does not change his mind regarding the 17 -foot sign. He added that unfortunately with so many requested variances, if one is denied, then everything is denied. Mr. Romney agreed, however, both parties might agree on stipulations to move this forward. Board member Zarra added that he was still not convinced that this was not self-imposed. Mr. Romney clarified that the sign code was imposed by the city, not the applicant. Chairperson Vescio asked the applicant the reasoning for requesting the whole package again without changes risking a denial from the Board. She said the only real issue was the 17 -foot sign. Ms. Murans explained that the City of Glendale was unique in not having a uniform package for signage unlike for example the City of Phoenix. She explained that in part they want to keep everything uniform and connected in a master plan that reflects their facilities in other cities. She said that the sign system's master plan should all work together, Mr. Gardner noted the Board can approve the sign package with stipulations. Vice Chairperson Feiner remarked that Arrowhead Ranch was very unique in character compared to the rest of the City of Glendale. He noted that this application might strip away some of the uniqueness that area may have compared to the rest of the city. He does not have a problem with the internal signs. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 4 Chairperson Vescio reminded the Board that they were confined to only the four findings regardless of their personal likes or dislikes. Mr. Romney agreed. He added that the Arrowhead Ranch HOA had sent their approval. Mr. Ritz stated the Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to granting a variance. Mr. Ritz reviewed staff s findings. 1. 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 there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property related to the shape of the site. He said there is no landscape median break on 67th Avenue between Union Hills Drive and 67th Avenue. This limits the visibility and ability for motorists who may wish to enter the medical campus. He noted the applicant indicates that many visitors are not certain where to enter the campus and get confused on where to go once on the campus. Without a median break, if a southbound motorist misses the left turn at Sack Drive, a considerable distance must be traveled to turn around to enter the campus. Union Hills Drive has a curve in the road near 64th Avenue. He explained that this limits the visibility in the area for motorists and the applicant believes that new signs, identified as Sign Type C, will offer greater visibility to visitors and help direct traffic off of the arterials and onto the medical campus. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application, of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district; He said the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would require that all signs conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for commercial districts. He noted the property owner could have chosen to follow the Zoning Ordinance with regard to sign sizes, numbers, and placement, rather than proposing the signs which are proposed. He noted that the applicant seeks greater signage to enhance visibility and reduce confusion for visitors. The Abrazo Arrowhead medical campus is a community asset. 3. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships. He said the variance requested is in response to a property hardship. 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 granting of the variance does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the adjoining properties, the surrounding neighborhood, and the city in general. Chairperson Vescio opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 5 Chairperson Vescio 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 4-3 vote. Martinez, Fitzer, Feiner, Vescio voted Aye. Zarra, Dietzman, Wilson voted Nay. Finding Two. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Two. The Board responded with a 4-1-2 vote. Dietzman, Wilson, Martinez, Fitzer voted Aye.. Feiner voted Nay. Vescio, Zarra abstained. Finding Three. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Three. The Board responded with a 4-3 vote. Wilson, Martinez, Fitzer, Vescio voted Aye. Zarra, Dietzman, Feiner voted Nay. Finding Four. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Four. The Board responded with a 4-3 vote. Wilson, Martinez, Fitzer, Vescio voted Aye. Zarra, Dietzman, Feiner voted Nay. Mr. Romney asked that if based on the findings, does the Board wish to grant variance VAR16-11 subject to the stipulations set forth by the Planning Division. Chairperson Vescio called for a motion. CHAIRPERSON VESCIO MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE VAR16-11. BOARD MEMBER MARTINEZ SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED 4-3 (MARTINEZ, FITZER, VICE CHAIRPERSON FEINER, AND CHAIRPERSON VESCIO VOTING AYE AND BOARDMEMBERS ZARRA, DIETZMAN AND WILSON VOTING NAY). 2. VAR16-10: A variance request by John and Luz Griego to reduce rear setback to three (3) feet where twenty (20) feet is the minimum required in the RI -8 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. The site is located at 7352 North 82nd Avenue within the West Glenn Estates subdivision and is southwest of 82nd Avenue and Gardenia Avenue. This property is in the Yucca District. Staff Contact: Carol Hu, Planner. Tabitha Perry, Assistant Planning Director, stated she will be making the presentation today in place of Ms. Hu. Ms. Perry stated this was a request by John and Luz Griego to reduce rear setback to three feet where twenty feet is the minimum required in the R1-8 PRD zoning district. She said the site is located at 7352 North 82nd Avenue within the West Glenn Estates subdivision and is southwest of 82nd Avenue and Gardenia Avenue. The size of the property is approximately 8,985 square feet. She explained that the Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 6 general dimension of the lot is rectangular with approximate dimensions of 80' X 110.' She noted additional information on average lot size is 10,431 square feet, largest lot is 20,981 square feet with the smallest lot being 7,700 sq. ft. She said this property is in the Yucca District. She noted that the Board must consider the facts and determine that the findings required to grant a variance have been met. Additionally, the Board may condition a variance to ensure that it will not grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitation of other similarly zoned properties. She added the Board must deny the request if the required findings have not been met. Ms. Perry stated that on January 18, 2017, the applicant mailed notification letters to adjacent property owners and interested parties. The applicant did receive one letter and six signatures in support of the request. Planning received one response from the HOA in opposition regarding the request. Ms. Perry stated the variance request does not appear to meet the four findings and should be denied. She asked for questions from the Board. Chairperson Vescio asked for clarification on how to analyze the application using current or potential circumstances that might have existed. She also clarified that the HOA's comments should only be taken as general information and not one of the four findings. Board member Zarra asked what would happen to the structure if denied. Ms. Perry stated the applicant would have to remove the structure. Chairperson Vescio called for the applicant to make a presentation. Ms. Luz Griego stated she knew she was in the wrong, however, they did consult their neighbors and their HOA. She said she will do whatever it takes to fix this issue. She was prepared to take it down but would rather keep it and work with the city. She discussed the gravel draining issue. Chairperson Vescio asked for clarification on if the problem was with the structure or the overhang. Ms. Perry explained the issue, noting that an option could be to bring the post in, however, the applicant must work with staff. Mr. Griego explained that this has been a very bad year for them, which was not an excuse. However, he does have emails from the HOA telling him that he does not have to tear down the structure and that they will be able to work with him. He stated that if the Board decides that it has to come down, he will remove it. Chairperson Vescio opened the floor for the Board to ask questions. There were none. Chairperson Vescio opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Chairperson Vescio closed the public hearing. Chairperson Vescio asked the Board and staff for any further questions or comments. Board member Fitzer asked what the time frame was for removal should this application be denied. Ms. Perry stated that Code Compliance would determine the time frame. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 7 I Chairperson Vescio remarked the problem was that the structure already exists and should they consider leaving it up. However, on the other hand, if approved, this might open the pathway for others to break the rules. She asked Mr. Romney if their decision would prejudice the applicant's open violation case and open them up for fines. Mr. Romney explained that every case was unique therefore he was unsure of the outcome. Ms. Perry explained that their department works closely with code compliance and if the applicant is being pro -active, the city is willing to work with them. She added that should the Board deny this request, they will work with the applicants to have the structure removed in a reasonable amount of time; usually within a 4 to 6 -month period. Board member Dietzman asked if the applicant can work with city staff to modify the application if denied. Ms. Perry stated that they can possibly work with the applicant once the Board makes a determination. Ms. Griego said she would like to save it, however, if not possible, she would like to have enough time to remove it. Mr. Griego noted that similar structures have been built in the area. Board member Dietzman asked if this application was tabled, could staff work with them to modify the structure. Ms. Perry does not recommend tabling the application. She rather the applicant come back with a new application addressing the setbacks. Chairperson Vescio asked for a motion from the Board. Ms. Griego remarked that it had not been communicated that they would have to pay another application fee. Ms. Perry noted the city might be able to provide a 10% administrative relief on the fee once they reapply because it will be considered for a principle structure. Board member Fitzer commented that the setback issue had not been communicated effectively. He believes it will cause a hardship on the surrounding area. Ms. Perry stated the Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to granting a variance. 1. There are special circumstances/conditions applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner; Staff finds that there are no applicable conditions or special circumstances existing on the property. The single-family residence was built in 2002. Staff did not find any irregularity due to size, shape, or topography on the lot. This lot is approximately 80 feet wide by 110 feet deep. There is a triangular area in addition to the rectangular lot at the front yard. The lot is located adjacent to a corner lot which necessitated the need for this additional triangular piece to better facilitate site visibility. The surrounding property appears to meet the RI -8 PRD development standards. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district; Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 8 The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would limit the property to a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback and limit the size of a patio that could be attached to the primary home. However, staff did not find that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property any privileges that others of the same classification would enjoy 3. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships. The requested rear yard setback at 3 feet is the necessary relief required to alleviate this home with a patio cover on the lot. This is due to the fact that the patio was already constructed without a permit and has encroached into the rear yard. There is only a distance of three feet between the edges of patio to the property line. Nevertheless, staff does not view the 3 feet rear yard setback as the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship. The owner had expressed that there is extreme heat exposure west of the property that caused the windows to crack. There are alternative solutions to provide additional shading in the rear yard such as planting mature trees or constructing an accessory structure 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, surrounding neighborhoods or the city in general. The requested building setback is not consistent with other properties in the surrounding area. Should the variance be approved, the patio addition would significantly reduce the use of the rear yard on the property. The rear yard is adjacent to five properties and would be visible to the neighbors. The patio does not have an approved building permit. Therefore, the City has not verified the condition of safety and compliance to building codes. The encroachment of this patio would reduce the ability for neighboring properties to construct accessory structures. Article 7.301.A. (accessory buildings) in the Zoning Ordinance requires .a minimum ten (10) feet of separation between structures. By allowing the patio to remain at three (3) feet, the neighboring property would need to carry the burden of providing additional separation setback within their rear yard. It is staff's opinion that there may be detrimental effect to the neighboring properties due to visibility, safety and enjoyment of yard space. Ms. Perry stated the variance request does not appear to meet the four findings and should be denied. If the Board decides to grant the variance, it should be subject to the following stipulation: Development shall be in conformance with applicable site and floor plan, date-stamped December 19, 2016. Based on the facts and evidence presented, Mr. Romney requested a vote from the Board. Finding One. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding One. The Board responded with a 4-2-1 vote. Wilson, Martinez voted Aye. Zarra, Fitzer, Dietzman, Feiner voted Nay. Vescio abstained. There was no need to move forward. Chairperson Vescio called for a motion. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 9 CHAIRPERSON VESCIO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS TO APPROVE THIS ITEM ON THE FIRST FINDING. THE ITEM WAS DENIED. 3. VAR16-12: A variance request by Ulises Gonzalez, on behalf of Karina Gonzalez, to reduce the required lot depth from ninety-four (94) feet to fifty (50) feet, lot size from 6,000 square feet to approximately 4,500 square feet, and perimeter setback from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The site is located at 6011 West Lamar Road within the Orchard Addition Subdivision at the southwest corner of 60th Avenue and Lamar Road. This property is in the Ocotillo District. Staff Contact: Carol Hu, Planner. Tabitha Perry, Assistant Planning Director, stated this was a request by Ulises Gonzalez, on behalf of Karina Gonzalez, to reduce the required lot depth from ninety-four feet to fifty feet, lot size from 6,000 square feet to approximately 4,500 square feet, and perimeter setback from twenty feet to ten feet in the R-3 zoning district. She said the site is located at 6011 West Lamar Road within the Orchard Addition Subdivision at the southwest corner of 60th Avenue and Lamar Road. This property is in the Ocotillo District. The applicant is requesting a variance to deviate from the required minimum lot depth, lot size and perimeter setback in the R-3 zoning district. She explained that if approved, the applicant intends to construct a two-story home approximately 1,699 square feet. Ms. Perry stated that the Board must consider the facts and determine that the findings required to grant variance have been met. Additionally, the Board may condition a variance to ensure that it will not grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitation of other similarly zoned properties. The Board must deny the request if the required findings have not been met. On December 12, 2016, the applicant mailed notification letters to adjacent property owners and interested parties. Ms. Perry stated the applicant did not receive any response regarding the request. To date, Planning staff has not received any response. Ms. Perry explained the Minor Land Division regarding this application. Ms. Perry stated the Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to granting a variance. Ms. Perry reviewed staff s findings. 1. There are special circumstances/conditions applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner; She said the depth of the lot, lot size and setback in the R-3 zoning district are special circumstances on the property. It is evident that the subject property was a portion of a larger parcel designated as Lot 1 on Jefferson Street of Orchard Addition. The bisection of the original lot into two separate parcels created the unique circumstance on the property. The creation of this property altered the orientation of lot from fronting 60th Avenue to Lamar Road. This resulted in insufficient setback, depth and size of the lot to accommodate a typical house product. She noted the construction of a new home would require relief to all three conditions. She explained the Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 10 current property owner purchased the property in July 2016. Therefore, the unique conditions of the property were not created nor self-imposed by the current owner. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district; She stated the strict application of the minimum lot size requirement would allow construction of a home measured 10 feet by 50 feet (totaling 500 sq. ft.) on this site. She said this strict application of the Zoning Ordinance does not render this lot useless. However, the Zoning Ordinance would limit the property to twenty (20) foot perimeter setbacks and limit the type of housing product due to total size and lot depth. The surrounding neighborhood is generally developed with a reduced setback of 10 feet rather than the required 20 feet perimeter setback. Several of the properties in the neighborhood do have setbacks that are similar to the requested setback. However, the subject lot is smaller than the typical lots within the surrounding area. The strict application of the required lot depth of 94 feet where 50 feet is provided would prevent the construction of a home. She noted the applicant has prepared a site plan with a home product that would fit within the lot and would be complementary to the existing area should the request for relief be granted for lot depth and perimeter setback. 3. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships. She explained that the requested relief for lot depth, size and setback are the minimum necessary to construct the single-family residential home that the applicant desires. The lot width, lot coverage and structure height are in conformance with current R-3 zoning requirements. 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, surrounding neighborhoods or the city in general. She stated the request could be detrimental to the surrounding properties. She said this is due to the owner's wish to construct a larger two-story home. The requested reduction in setback would locate the home closer to the property line. Surrounding properties may not be able to enjoy the yard with the visibility of a two-story home. However, the maximum height allowed would allow for a two-story home. She explained that the development of the subject lot at approximately 4,500 square feet is inconsistent with other properties in the surrounding area. The majority of the lots to the north and south of the subject site are approximately 9,000 square feet. However, the western lots are zoned R1-6 at approximately 6,000 square feet. These observations are based on the Maricopa County Assessor map information. She noted that staff did not receive any opposition to this request and therefore, may be evident for no detrimental effect on adjoining property. Ms. Perry stated the variance request appears to meet the findings and should be approved. She stated that should the Board of Adjustment approve the Variance, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. Development shall be in conformance with the applicable site plan, date-stamped February 7, 2017. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page l l Ms. Perry asked for questions from the Board. Chairperson Vescio asked a question regarding the previous owner's application to the county for the property and if that had any bearing on the application. Ms. Perry explained. Board member Zarra asked how long the property had been barren. Ms. Perry replied that she was not sure. Chairperson Vescio called for the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Ulises Gonzalez, applicant, stated simply that they try to stay 20 feet away from the neighbors so as to not encroach on their property. Chairperson Vescio opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Chairperson Vescio closed the public hearing. Chairperson Vescio asked the Board for any further questions or comments. Board member Zarra stated he believes it was very admirable that the applicant is making good use of this property. He was glad that new development was coming into the area. 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 5-2 vote. Vescio, Zarra, Fitzer, Dietzman, Feiner voted Aye. Wilson, Martinez voted Nay. Finding Two. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Two. The Board responded with a 6-1 vote. Vescio, Zarra, Fitzer, Dietzman, Feiner, Wilson voted Aye. Martinez voted Nay. Finding Three. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Three. The Board responded with a 6-0-1 vote. Vescio, Zarra, Fitzer, Dietzman, Feiner, Wilson voted Aye. Martinez abstained. Finding Four. Chairperson Vescio called for a voice vote on Finding Four. The Board responded with a 5-0-2 vote. Zarra, Fitzer, Dietzman, Feiner, Wilson voted Aye. Vescio and Martinez abstained. Mr. Romney asked that if based on the findings, does the Board wish to grant variance VAR16-12 subject to the stipulations set forth by the Planning Division. Chairperson Vescio called for a motion. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 13, 2017 Page 12 VICE CHAIRPERSON FEINER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE VAR16-12 SUBJECT TO THE STIPULATION NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BOARD MEMBER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER 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 Staff Comments and Suggestions. There was none. BOARD COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chairperson Vescio called for Board Comments and Suggestions. There were none. ADJOURMENT Chairperson Vescio called for a motion to adjourn. BOARD MEMBER ZARRA MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. BOARD MEMBER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 5:59 p.m. NEXT MEETING: May 11, 2017 (VACATED)