Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 10/10/2019MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 2A 5850 W. GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2019 4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Committee members present: Chairperson Erminie Zarra, Vice Chair Cathy Cheshier, Lawrence Feiner, and Benjamin Naber are present. Committee members absent: Veronica Flores was absent. City staff present: Lisa Collins (Interim Planning Administrator), George Gehlert (Planning Staff), James Gruber (City Attorney Office), Eric Fitzer (Development Services Director), Samantha Cope (Administrative Support Staff), and Russ Romney (Deputy City Attorney) were present. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairperson Zarra asked for citizen comments, and no citizen comments were made. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A motion to approve the August meeting minutes was made by Vice Chair Cheshier and seconded by Mr. Naber. All in favor, and none opposed. A motion to approve the September meeting minutes was made by Mr. Naber and seconded by Mr. Feiner. All in favor, and none opposed. WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES Ms. Collins noted that there are no withdrawals or continuances. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS VAR19-05 NUNEZ — VARIANCE FOR PERIMETER SETBACK REDUCTION A request by Marisol Ruiz, representing Avilia Nunez and Everardo Faudoa, property owners, for approval of a Variance for the property at 6705 N 54th Avenue (zoned R-3 Multiple Residence), in order to reduce the required 20 -foot perimeter setback required by the Glendale Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 5.420 — R-3 Zone, Multiple Residence Districts Development standards). Approval of the request would reduce the 20 -foot perimeter building setback to 5 feet on the north side and 10 feet on the south side. Staff Contact: George Gehlert, Planner (623) 930-2597. Notices of the variance were mailed out to neighbors and a notice was published in The Glendale Star. Findings 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner. a. The adoption of the 20 -foot perimeter setback in 1993 narrowed the building envelope to 10 feet wide. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district (the resulting building envelope is not practical). a. The resulting building envelope is not practical. 3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship. a. The proposed 5- and 10 -foot setbacks are the same as for the R1-7 zone, which accommodates similar single-family development on the same size lot. 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general. a. The new setback would make the lot buildable. Staff then recommended the approval of VAR 19-05. Chairperson Zarra asked if the applicant wished to present anything on their own behalf, and they declined. Chairperson Zarra then asked if any of the board members had any questions or concerns, and the board had no comments. Chairperson Zarra asked if the applicant would like to present a closing statement, which they also declined. Finally, since the city staff had no comment, the hearing closed, and the public discussion opened. No discussion was needed, so from here, the board voted per each finding with the help of Mr. Romney. 1. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." 2. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." 3. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." 4. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." There was a roll call vote to determine if the variance was necessary to alleviate the property hardship. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." The board was asked if they found that granting the ordinance will not have a detrimental effect on the home, neighborhood, or city. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "aye." Mr. Naber made a motion to approve the variance, and it was seconded by Vice Chair Cheshier. All voted "aye" in favor, and none opposed. Variance granted. VAR19-13 LUCILA URIBE GARCIA PERIMETER SETBACK REDUCTION VARIANCE A request by Jacqueline Soto, Torres Firm, representing the property owner Lucila Uribe Garcia, for approval of a Variance for the property at 5126 W Sweetwater (zoned R-3 Multiple Residence), in order to reduce the required 20 -foot perimeter setback required by the Glendale 2 Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 5.420 — R-3 Zone, Multiple Residence Districts Development standards). Approval of the request would reduce the 20 -foot perimeter to 3 feet on the north (rear) and east (side) boundaries. Staff Contact: George Gehlert, Planner (623) 930-2597. Notices of the variance were mailed out to neighbors and a notice was published in The Glendale Star. Findings 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the owner. a. Staff finds no special circumstances. The lot meets the density district development standards for size, width and length. 2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district (the resulting building envelope is not practical). a. Staff finds no evidence of this. The 20 -foot perimeter setback results in a building envelope which measures 34'x70' for a total potential 1 -story footprint of 2,380 SF (without any kind of encroachment). As 2 -story structures are also allowed, the size of the building could potentially be doubled to 4,760 SF. The carports to the north are detached accessory structures which are not subject to the same setback requirements as attached roof structures. 3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship. a. The applicant suggests a hardship pertaining to a drainage issue at the rear of the property which results from runoff associated with a legally permitted detached carport structures. There are other means to address the drainage issue. 4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general. a. The resulting structure will encroach into a required setback area also required of neighboring properties for attached structures. Due to the staff not recognizing a valid hardship associated with the property, the proposed motion is to deny VAR19-13. Ms. Soto made note of some corrections. The storage unit on the east side of the visual of the property is not part of the application due to it no longer existing, and the patio cover is 37 feet and 2 inches. Ms. Soto clarified that the car ports behind Ms. Uribe's house cause flooding in her backyard. Ms. Soto also noted that there is only a 2 -foot difference in the previous variance proposed in comparison to this variance. Chairperson Zarra opened the public hearing and asked if any of the board members had any questions or concerns. Mr. Naber asked how the structure being built will help with the drainage issue. Ms. Soto explained that this would divert the water from the patio. Mr. Naber then confirmed that the neighbor's complaint about the storage shed was null because the shed no longer exists, and Ms. Soto confirmed this. Mr. Naber had no further questions. Vice Chair Cheshier asked what the proposed patio roof height is. Ms. Soto confirmed that this is an existing 3 structure, and the applicant wasn't aware of the setbacks, so that's the purpose of this variance. Mr. Gehlert explained that the patio cover is a 1 -story height. Mr. Feiner had no questions. Chairperson Zarra then asked if the applicant would like to present a closing statement, which they declined. Finally, since the city staff had no comment, the hearing closed, and the public discussion opened. No discussion was needed, so from here, the board began to vote per each finding with the help of Mr. Romney. 1. Mr. Naber, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Chairperson Zarra all said, "no." Based on the first finding's voting result, the board could not proceed with the remaining questions; thus, the variance has been denied. Ms. Collins stated that she would follow up with the application on the time frame for the appeal. Chairperson Zarra then called for a 10 -minute break. OTHER BUSINESS A. *ZIL19-02 CATLIN COURT DISTRICT PAD — APPEAL OF PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR DECISIONANTERPRETATION I. Professional Office Space Use II. Residential Use Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey Koppelmaa (Legal Counsel/Coit) and Valerie Burner Required Action: Hear and decide the appeal of the Planning Administrator Interpretation Mr. Koppelmaa began with an introduction of the appeal. Mr. Koppelmaa then asked if there was a way to ensure that all board members would be present at the next meeting, and Chairperson Zarra noted that this could not be guaranteed. Mr. Koppelmaa continued with the discussion of the Residential Use portion. Mr. Koppelmaa stated that it was important to note that statute of limitations need to be read in two ways: 1. They must be read it in their entirety and 2. The language of statutes must be interpreted in accordance with its commonly understood meaning. According to Mr. Koppelmaa, the planning administrator has failed on both counts due to some issues in regard to the planning administrator's interpretation and presentation of the statue. According to Mr. Koppelmaa, the planning administrator's interpretation of the professional office space limit is a refusal to enforce the law. Mr. Koppelmaa continued to discuss further issues with the planning administrator's decision of ZIL19-02. Mr. Koppelmaa asked the board members to correct the misinterpretation and send it back to a process which will "result in an administration of the law that is consistent with the PAD planning." Vice Chair Cheshier asked Mr. Koppelmaa to see one of the specific PAD issues (the misuse of the word "while"). Mr. Koppelmaa noted that it is on the second to last page. Vice Chair Cheshier found an issue with the use of "may" instead of "shall" because "may" implies something which is not mandatory. Vice Chair Cheshier had another concern about the PAD being put in place. Mr. Koppelmaa noted that "specialty retail" is the primary use of the land, and that is noted in the PAD. 4 From here, the City Staff noted that much of the language is narrative and it's meant to accommodate the integrity of the historic area. Ms. Collins noted that the planning director has express authority to administer and interpret acceptable land uses and requirements, which is listed in the PAD and zone ordinances. The city says they are not trying to overturn the PAD, but rather, the city has interpreted the professional office spaces and residential uses. Ms. Collins also mentioned that the FAR (floor area ratios) are used to establish building density and square footage. The intent is not meant to establish any sort of division of floors and building. It also never states that residential is prohibited, and it states, "residential use is limited to one dwelling unit per land property." After some discussion, the public hearing opened, and there were many people interested in sharing their thoughts on this PAD. Robert Robinson noted that he helped draft the PAD document. Mr. Robinson claimed that thirteen meet the professional issue and commented that the 25% limit would be difficult to enforce. The city cannot legally enforce it, and granted, it was drafted poorly, but instead of challenging the interpretation, consider drafting a new ordinance entirely. Ms. Zimmer discussed the benefits of having businesses and a community in the area, and the residential zoning removal would create issues which gives homeowners and business owners opportunities in Catlin Court. Mr. Burner is a business owner in Catlin Court and watched the city create properties, and Mr. Burner requests that going forward the city returns to the correct path. Ms. Kappes is also a business owner in Catlin Court. Ms. Kappes bought the property because it had a PAD to ensure that it stayed as a viable shopping and dining district. Ms. Moran-Whittley is the business partner of Ms. Kappes. Ms. Moran-Whittley noted the enforcement of the Catlin Court PAD should be done, and the board must have an understanding of the importance of a business being in a business area. Mr. Fennema explained that his business (which he co-owns with his wife) is his livelihood. Forcing anyone to move wouldn't be necessary, but moving forward, the enforcement should be done. Mr. Zomak also asked for the PAD to be enforced moving forward. Mr. Froke requested that there should be no changes made. Chairperson Zarra asked if the board members had any comments, but no comments were made. Chairperson Zarra then asked for closing statements. Mr. Koppelmaa and Ms. Collins each provided brief closing statements. Mr. Gruber wanted to add that the PAD expressly calls to interpret appropriate land usage, so therefore the interpretation shouldn't give rise to any Proposition 207 claims. Secondly, at the outset of the proceedings, there was a comment that the city believed the zoning interpretation spoke for itself, and staff did not accept the legal arguments submitted by council. A motion was made by Mr. Feiner to have this PAD become part of an executive board session, and Mr. Naber seconded. After a brief break, a motion was then made to table this discussion until next month's meeting. Mr. Feiner made the motion, and Vice Chair Cheshier seconded. All in favor, and none opposed. 5 Vice Chair Cheshier made a motion to extend Chairperson Zarra's term for a year, starting February 1 st, 2020. It was seconded by Mr. Naber. All were in favor. A motion was also made by Mr. Naber to extend Vice Chair Cheshier's term for a year, starting February 1 st, 2020. It was seconded by Mr. Feiner. All were in favor. TAFF REPORT Ms. Collins did not have a staff report. BOARD COMMENTS AND. SUGGESTIONS No other business, board comments, or suggestions were made. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will take place on Thursday, November 14, 2019, at 4 PM (tentatively in room B3). ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Cheshier made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and it was seconded by Mr. Naber. All were in favor. Samantha Cope Recording Secretary D