Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 3/12/1998 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson Capek, with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Phil Coningford Gordon Cheniae Bryan Clark Kathe Neyer Robert Koehler John Rotz Ron Capek, Chairperson CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Thomas Sedlmeier, Senior Planner Bill Luttrell, Senior Planner Ricardo Toris, Associate Planner Nan Robinson, Recording Secretary Chairperson Capek 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 request 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. Mr. Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, introduced members of the staff who were present. Boardmember Rotz made a MOTION to approve the February 12, 1998, minutes with two minor edits. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed with unanimously. Chairperson Capek called for Business From the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Capek asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 Chairperson Capek 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. Chairperson Capek then explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Capek called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ZV-97-30: A request by Susan Charnetsky representing SRM Investments, L.L.C. for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 63 spaces to 47 spaces in the C-0 (Commercial Office) zoning district for a proposed office building located at 5803 West Eugie Avenue. Staff contact: Thomas Sedlmeier Mr. Thomas Sedlmeier presented the request reviewing the site and the zoning district. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request did not appear to meet the required findings#1, 2, or 4. He said whether it meets finding#3 is debatable. Boardmember Koehler asked if the .97-acre measurement went to the center line of Eugie, or if it started at the lot line or curb line. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that was net acreage, so it was within the property line. Boardmember Clark asked what the ratio of parking was on the adjacent property which had originally been a part of this lot. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that when the CIGNA building was submitted for design review, that had been looked at. He said the project was built prior to 1993 and it met the parking ordinance at that time. He said he was unsure of the exact number. Boardmember Clark asked if excess parking was put in when the CIGNA building went up in anticipation of this lot being developed, that did not happen, and now he wondered if there was available parking at CIGNA that the owner of this property might be able to make an easement arrangement to use. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that the Master Site Plan indicated that if the two buildings had been built at the same time, it would have been parked at the current ratio. The applicant, Susan Chanetsky, 540 East Cerado Lane, Litchfield Park, said that the location makes this lot unique, not the size or shape. She noted that it was a commercial lot not located on a main arterial. She said it originally was right off of 59th Avenue when it was connected to the CIGNA lot. She said a commercial piece of property should be able to operate a commercial venture off of it, and noted that the purpose of commercial property is to make money. She said it was an infill lot, and nothing surrounding it was undetermined, everything was already built. She said if the owners leased the building out to business office people, the parking requirement would be 32 spaces. She said that very few people would be interested in the location for that purpose because it did not have major street frontage. She said the lot was in the medical area March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 and the people who want to lease space in that area are medical people. She did not believe reducing the required number of parking spaces would be detrimental to the area. She said she had received letters from potential tenants, which she shared with the Board, who were interested in leasing this lot as a satellite office. She explained that would mean the doctors would only be in the office once or twice a week, which would decrease the number of parking spaces required. She said the property owners calculated how many doctors could fit into the building comfortably, employees, and patients. She said it was in the doctors best interest not to overpark this site, as it would affect their patients. She said she did not change the number of spaces on the lot, but changed who would be in the building. She commented on the possibility of doing underground parking, and said that it would increase the costs significantly due to fire codes. She reiterated that the lot was special because of the location, and it would not be detrimental to the area. She said they had been watching the CIGNA building, which staff said was overparked, and it was her opinion that many spaces were empty at CIGNA's parking lot. She said perhaps her client could arrange to share CIGNA's parking area. Boardmember Neyer said the buildings showed vacancies, and asked what the ratio was. The applicant responded that 5757 West Thunderbird was at 1:200, and she was unsure of 5601 West Eugie. Boardmember Rotz said he liked the idea of an infill project, but it looked like the applicant was wanting about a 25% reduction. He said it seemed there would not be enough parking spaces. He said he had been to medical offices in that area and they did not have enough parking. The applicant responded that the difference was that this building would be a satellite office, versus a family practice or a surgical center. The parking spaces needed for a satellite office would be far less. Boardmember Rotz pointed out that the applicant had said the CIGNA building seemed to have sufficient parking for its customers, and the CIGNA building had been built to code, and had the required number of parking spaces. The applicant responded that CIGNA built many more parking spaces than they actually need. She said she did not feel her client needed to have 30% of his parking vacant to prove that he had enough. Boardmember Rotz said if the Board did not ask the applicant to have 40%, if they only asked for 5%, then 5% of 40 spaces would equal 2 parking spaces. He said that did not allow enough leeway. The applicant again said that the difference was the type of use due to the satellite office, and the doctors and patients would not all be there at the same time. She said they all work different days and different hours. Boardmember Rotz asked if there would be staff making appointments. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 The applicant responded that the appointments were made out of the main office. Boardmember Rotz said he thought they were looking at 8 or 9 doctors, each with staff. The applicant responded that they were probably actually looking at 4 or 5 doctors, with one person for staff, but there would only be one or two doctors there at a time. Boardmember Cheniae asked if there was an awareness by the owner of the parking requirements when he purchased the property. The applicant responded that the owner did not know about the parking requirements when he purchased the property. Boardmember Cheniae asked if once the owner was aware of the required parking ratio, did they give the original design another look. The applicant responded that they had started out with a mixed ratio of who they would lease to. She said she found as much parking area as she could by removing landscaping and retention, then put the building in last. She reiterated that there was no demand for general office space, but there was a demand for medical office space. Boardmember Coningford said he was concerned because the doctors move to the patient base, and there would probably be an increased demand for more hours, and more doctors. He asked what would happen then. The applicant responded that they would not be underparked. She said it was to the doctors' benefit to have enough parking for his patients. Boardmember Koehler asked if the two spaces within the setback line were a legitimate use of the setback area. The applicant referred the question to staff. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that those were building setbacks and parking can encroach into them. Boardmember Neyer asked if the applicant considered putting the building in a different spot. The applicant responded that they had considered other options but this was the best way. She said this way makes the best use of the driveways. She said that CIGNA has pediatricians and OB/GYN's, and they see many more patients in an hour than private doctors do, as they have to. She said CIGNA has a much higher patient load. There was one speaker, Cathy Perry, the property manager at the Thunderbird Paseo Apartments, 5757 West Eugie. She said she felt this request would be a detriment to the area, as there would March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 be overflow parking onto the streets and onto the drive through the apartments. She further said that a satellite office can change into a full-time main office, especially with the growth in the area. She said with regard to "too much parking at CIGNA", she had never seen the CIGNA parking lot with any empty spaces. She said every time she ever drove past it, it was full of cars. She further pointed out that there could be an increase in their client base, which would increase the need for more parking. She suggested that at some point the owners could reconstruct the building and add a second floor, which would require more parking. Then she asked if there would be a screen wall between the property and the Thunderbird Paseo Apartments property. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that it did not show on the overhead exhibit, but a parking screen wall was required. Chairperson Capek said when he was reviewing this case he wondered why the Zoning Ordinance had been changed to allow for more parking spaces. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that there was a demonstrated need for more parking for medical office uses. Mr. Jacobs confirmed that was correct. He said medical office uses require more parking than business office. Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing. Boardmember Coningford MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-97-30. Boardmember Cheniae SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Koehler said he was concerned, as staff was, that the reduction in parking spaces would be inadequate. He said the CIGNA parking lot always seemed to be quite full. Boardmember Neyer said she initially thought she could support this application, however, she was concerned about growth in the area. She said she could not support it. Boardmember Rotz said if all three doctors were seeing patients on one day, it would be very crowded, and there would not be enough parking. Boardmember Cheniae said he concurred with the other Boardmembers. He said the adjacent property would be impacted. He said the percentage of reduction in parking the applicant had requested was too substantial. Boardmember Coningford said when the Zoning Ordinance changed to require more parking for medical office uses, it showed good foresight with regard to the population explosion in that part of Glendale. He said parking is at a premium and when a place starts as a small office, there is then a demand for more. He said he could not support this request. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 Boardmember Clark said the property does have a hardship, as it is behind the grocery store, and set back in from the main street. He said he was sympathetic to the difficulties of infill and of this particular lot, however, he could not see a good reason to justify the significant decrease in parking spaces. Chairperson Capek said his thoughts reflected what all of the other Boardmembers had already said. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote, and the MOTION WAS DENIED unanimously. 2. ZV-98-01: A request by Nessler/New Image Development for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback, for a new single-family residence, to 11 feet where 20 feet is the minimum allowed in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) Zoning District. The property is located at 6018 W. Ocotillo Road. Staff contact: Ricardo Toris. (Ocotillo District) Mr. Ricardo Toris presented the application and reviewed the site and the request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings #1, 2, and 4. He said whether or not it met finding#3 was debatable. The applicant, Mr. Denny Nessler, 19408 3rd Drive, Phoenix, said the layout shows that this is a small lot. He said there was no other way to lay out the house, and he had put the carport to the backside of the lot, because it would take away from parking on Ocotillo. He felt there was easier and safer access to the house this way, rather than backing out onto the main road. He said if the carport was on the east side of the house, then it would be down to 18 feet on the east side. He said he was really restricted on the location of the carport and the house. Chairperson Capek asked if the applicant had always owned the property. Mr. Nessler responded that he purchased the property about two years ago. He said there had been a house on it but it was demolished. He commented that he had spoken with the neighbors in the area and they wanted another house built on the lot. They felt a house there would help to eliminate crime and trash in the area. He said when he purchased the property he did not know it was zoned R-3. Boardmember Rotz asked if the applicant planned to live in the house. Mr. Nessler responded he did not plan to live in it, it would be a spec home. He commented that there were some areas where it was not a good place to build a house. Chairperson Capek asked if this was a"key" lot. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 Mr. Torts said it could be, if the frontage on the alley was street front. He said because it was an alley, it was not considered a "key" lot. He explained that a "key" lot must meet specific rear yard setbacks, and visibility triangles are taken into consideration. Boardmember Neyer asked about the R-3 zoning. She commented that if the applicant could not build a house on it, how could they possibly build multiple residence? Mr. Torts responded that this was an unusually sized lot that was subdivided at one time. He said it did not even meet the standards for R1-4. He said the lot was well below the standards for R-3 and R-2, and R1-4. As there were no further questions, Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing on ZV-98-01. Boardmember Rotz MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-98-01. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Clark commented that he noticed the Citizen Participation Ordinance materials in his packet, and he was very impressed that for this one house 50 or more residents were contacted. He felt that was a substantial effort for a single house. He said he was all for infill, and he felt the layout of the house and the addition were modest. He said this is a good infill project and he would support it. Boardmember Coningford said he concurred, and felt this request met the required findings. Boardmember Cheniae said he concurred, and felt it was an excellent design on the lot. He felt that all four of the required findings had been met. Boardmember Rotz commented that anything that helps the neighborhood would be good. Boardmember Neyer said she concurred with the other Board members and would support the request. Boardmember Koehler said he felt required findings 1, 2 and 4 had been met, however, required finding 3 was marginal. He said there would be encroachment one way or the other, so he would support it. He further commented that there were smaller homes across the street and their view would be enhanced by this orientation. Chairperson Capek had no comment. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ZV-98-02: A request by Thomas Bottemley on behalf of Dave and Pauline Thomas, for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback, for a garage addition to an existing house, to 30 feet 6 inches where 50 feet is the March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 8 minimum allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) Zoning District. The property is located at 6614 W. Pershing Avenue. Staff contact: Ricardo Toris. (Sahuaro District) Mr. Ricardo Toris presented the application reviewing the site and the request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all four of the required findings. The applicant, Mr. Tom Bottemley, 9016 East Decatur, Mesa, said this request was in keeping with the owner's goal of adding a third car garage. He said it was not excessive because of the existing neighborhood and the existing character of the neighborhood. He said it seemed that the third car addition would greatly enhance the property. He said they would match the existing house and garage with regard to architecture and colors, and be sure it would blend in a very harmonious manner. Boardmember Neyer asked the applicant to clarify where the garage was in his drawing that was displayed on the overhead. Mr. Bottemly responded that this was a third car garage, and was an addition to the house. He explained that the addition was set back two feet to tie into the existing architecture. He pointed out that the driveway would be widened with a small planter area in between the existing garage and the new addition. He said they did not want to encroach further into the front yard setback into the street. Chairperson Capek asked what the indented space was to the right of the third car garage. Mr. Bottemly responded that was a two foot indent from the original house, and it was a storage alcove on the existing house. As there were no further questions, Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing on ZV-98-02. Boardmember Clark MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-98-02. Boardmember Rotz SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Rotz said he was in support of this application. Boardmember Chenaie said this application was consistent with the other A-1 zoning variances the Board had heard, and he concurred with the staff report, and was in support of the application. Boardmember Coningford said he agreed with the other Board members. Boardmember Neyer said she agreed with the other Board members. Boardmember Koehler said he concurred with the other Board members. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 Boardmember Clark said he concurred with the other Board members. Chairperson Capek said he had no comment. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. ZV-97-28: A request by McDonald's Corporation for a variance to allow one free- standing identification sign for a proposed restaurant located in a shopping center where free-standing signs are allowed for shopping identification only. The proposed sign shall be 8 feet high, and 24 square feet. The project is located in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The property is located at 6002 North 59th Avenue (the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Bethany Home Road). Staff Contact: Bill Luttrell. (Ocotillo District) Mr. Bill Luttrell presented the application, reviewing the request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt this request appeared to meet the required findings for a variance. He said if the Board approved the variance, it should be subject to one stipulation: 1. The free-standing identification sign shall be a maximum of 8 feet high with no more than 24 square feet of sign area. Boardmember Rotz commented that the applicant was asking for a lot less sign than they could have if they were approved on a separate parcel. Mr. Luttrell responded that was correct. The applicant, Mr. Keith Romine, representing McDonald's Corporation, 432 North 44th Street, Phoenix, commented that as the site plan grew and as they began working with staff to integrate what began as a McDonald's freestanding facility, into what is now becoming a rejuvenated shopping center (the owner will be remodeling the shopping center), some of the issues that the staff requested was that originally there were multiple driveways in and out onto the street, and staff recommended one access driveway rather than several. He said they did that, and by doing so, it triggered this outparcel to no longer be a freestanding pad, and they are now part of the shopping center. He said what had occurred was that in cooperating with staff, the McDonald's had become part of the shopping center, which created the hardship. He said if they were to close the site back off and maintain two access points onto the streets on both frontages, they would again be freestanding and would not have to go through this process. He said what they were asking for was what they would have had if they had not been working with staff. Mr. Luttrell pointed out the definitions of permitted signage within the current Ordinance, and that by definition of a project, McDonald's would have been considered as part of the shopping center regardless of independent access. He said staff felt there was a hardship in this case due to strict application of the Zoning Ordinance. He said because the shopping center was older and March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 10 was built "piece-meal" with no master plan and no sign package, these factors restricted the applicant. As there were no further questions, Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing on ZV-97-28. Boardmember Koehler MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE .ZV-97-28. Boardmember Clark SECONDED THE MOTION subject to the one stipulation identified by staff. Boardmember Chenaie said he concurred with staff that the four findings had been met. Boardmember Koehler said he was in support of this application. Boardmember Clark said he was in support of this application. Boardmember Coningford said he supported this application. Boardmember Neyer said she supported this application. Boardmember Rotz said this was a wonderful application and the McDonald's in this location will bring life back to what was once a bustling corner in Glendale. He said he supported the application. Chairperson Capek had no comment. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote and .the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Capek asked if there was any Other Business. The members of the Board extended their sympathies to Mr. Coningford, whose father had recently passed away. Chairperson Capek commented that the aerial overheads that staff was presenting in previous meetings as well as in this meeting were outdated. He said it was difficult for the Board to view them and try to make a decision when so much in the neighborhoods had changed. He asked Mr. Jacobs why the aerial overheads were so outdated. Mr. Jacobs responded that he hoped this year's budget would allow for the purchase of updated aerial photographs. He said it was a concern of staff also. Chairperson Capek said it was justified to renew the aerial photographs every few years. Boardmember Koehler said it was his understanding that aerial photographs were very expensive. Chairperson Capek asked for the Planning Staff Report. March 12, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 11 Mr. Jacobs informed the Board that Paul Langdon was moving out of state and was no longer with the City of Glendale. There was no further business. Boardmember Rotz made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Coningford SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Y)crz Nan Robinson, Recording Secretary