Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 4/9/1998 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 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 Kathe Neyer Robert Koehler John Rotz Ron Capek, Chairperson ABSENT: Bryan Clark CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Ricardo Toris, 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 March 12, 1998, minutes. Boardmember Coningford 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 was one withdrawal. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 1. ZV-98-06: A request by Raymond Carreon on behalf of Gary Darling, for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 13 feet 2 inches and increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 46.6% to accommodate a new single residence in the R1-6 (Single Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 7723 West Topeka Drive. Staff Contact: Ricardo Toris (Cholla District) Mr. Jacobs advised the Board that the applicant had withdrawn this request. A letter of withdrawal from the applicant was submitted. 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. 2. ZV-98-03: A request by Jan P. McCabe to allow a maximum lot coverage of 25% where 10% is the maximum allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 5118 West Waltann Lane. Staff Contact: Ricardo Toris (Sahuaro District). Mr. Toris presented the request reviewing the site and the application. He concluded his presentation by stating that the request appeared to meet findings 1, 2, and 4. He said whether or not it met finding 3 was debatable. He asked if the Board had any questions. Boardmember Rotz askedifthey were talking about setbacks or just lot coverage. Chairperson Capek responded the issue was just lot coverage. The applicant, Mr. Jan McCabe, 5118 West Waltann, Glendale, said he was building a place to "get away". He said he had been using his garage for storage to the point where no cars fit in it any longer, and this additional building would relieve the garage. He said there were other workshops and buildings in back yards of homes in his neighborhood, and what he was planning to do was not out of character with the neighborhood. He said he spoke to eight neighbors on all sides and not one of them had a concern with what he was proposing. He told the Board he was asking for flexibility so that at some point if he wanted to put a patio onto the back of his house, he would not have to go through this process again. He said he understood that this was A-1 zoned property and it was within a community that had horse property, and he did not want to damage that in any way. Boardmember Neyer asked the applicant to clarify the map which had the building labeled as a garage. She asked if there would be a driveway. Mr. McCabe responded that when he originally drew the plan, he had labeled the structure as a garage, but it was really more of a workshop. He said it was an accessory building but he was putting a large garage door on it to be able to move things in and out. He said there would be no April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 concrete, and there would be a 35' easement behind it. He said he was very aware of his neighbors and did not want things visible to his neighbors. Boardmember Koehler asked what the wall height was on the building he intended to put up. Mr. McCabe responded it would be 8'. He said the neighbor next door has a 20' high building and he planted trees to help soften the view of that building. He said that was one reason why he was sticking with 8' so as not to infringe on his neighbors views. Boardmember Koehler asked if the walls would be block, and if they would be 1' thick. Mr. McCabe responded they would be 2' x 6' frame insulated so he could put some type of cooling in it so he could work in it during the summer. Boardmember Koehler asked if it would be a wood frame. Mr. McCabe responded it would be wood frame, it would match the house, and he had already shown the Building Planning Department and they had agreed with what he intended to do. Boardmember Koehler asked if there would be access to the building off of the alley in the back. Mr. McCabe responded that was not really an alley, it was more of a horse path and vehicular access would be very limited. He said it gets very muddy when it rains. As there were no further questions, Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing on ZV-98-03. Boardmember Rotz MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-98-03. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Neyer commented that the Board had approved requests such as this one before, and the application appeared to be well thought out. She said she would approve it. Boardmember Coningford said he liked the idea of flexibility that the applicant had mentioned, so that he did not have to go through the process again. He said he would support the application. Boardmember Koehler said he supported the applications and he felt the required findings had been met. Boardmember Chenaie said he concurred. Boardmember Rotz said he concurred. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 3.. ZV-98-04: A request by Executive Homes, Inc., for a variance to reduce the required minimum separation to 10 feet between buildings on adjacent lots, for a new single residence, where 15 feet is the minimum allowed in the R1-6 (Single Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6231 West Navajo Drive. Staff Contact: Ricardo Toris (Barrel District) Mr. Toris presented the request reviewing the site and the application. He concluded his presentation by stating that the request appeared to meet findings 1, 2, and 4. He said whether or not it met finding 3 was debatable. Boardmember Rotz said that in the narrative, item #1, it says this was an oversight that was not intentionally self imposed. He asked at what point in the description of item #1 was the Board supposed to decide whether this was intentionally self imposed, as opposed to self imposed. Mr. Toris responded that due to the fact that a house plan is brought in on a case-by-case basis, they don't always know how the whole thing would lay out. He said it was staff's opinion that the plans for the houses on either side of this lot were approved by the City, as well as this lot was approved by the City. He said he was unsure how to answer Boardmember Rotz's question because he was unsure at what point it became self imposed. Boardmember Rotz noted that in the report's conclusion, this request appeared to meet finding 1. He said he did not see anything in finding #1 which said "intentionally self imposed". He said in his opinion this situation was self imposed, yet staff was saying it met finding#1. Mr. Toris responded that because the review was done on a case-by-case basis, it was an oversight. Boardmember Chenaie said his understanding was that the plans came in one by one, piece--meal, and were approved. And through no fault of the applicant's, it was now a situation where they could not get a 15' setback on either side, because of what had been done prior to their application. He said he felt it was not self imposed by the applicant, and the City of Glendale had approved the lots on either side. Boardmember Rotz said the same builder did all of the house products. He said the builder decided what house products would go on what lots. He said the builder should have figured out if they put a big wide house on one lot and a big wide house on another, that somewhere along the line one of the houses was not going to be able to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Toris said this subdivision had two corner lots, which eventually would produce a 5' and 5' side setback next door to each other unless extra wide lots were included. He said in addition, there was not very much flexibility when the lot widths were smaller. Chairperson Capek asked if a builder would need to show the City through his plot plan for his subdivision that all of the house products would meet the minimum setbacks. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Mr. Toris responded that was correct. He said in this case the only product this builder had was a 35' product. He said when it is a 35' product on a 50' lot, and a 5' and 10' side setbacks, they are limited as to how they can shift the house. In addition, he said this builder was dealing with those two corner lots. Chairperson Capek said he felt he was trying to grant a variance for this lot, when in actuality, it was the lots next door that were the problem. In addition, he said because of the 10' setback imposed by the drainage ditch, that house could not be moved anyplace else on the lot. Mr. Toris responded that the 10' drainage easement was actually on the next lot over. Chairperson Capek said the lot still had the 10' minimum side setbacks, and the house could not have been moved over at all. Mr. Toris responded that the house could have been moved. He explained that if everything had shifted to the left the house on the subject site could have been shifted over 5 more feet. The applicant, Mr. Bill Diana, with Executive Homes, 8601 North Black Canyon Highway, said this was a subdivision that he purchased from another developer, and it had already been approved. He said when you start with a corner lot and end with a corner lot, you need to be sure that both corner lots are 55' wide instead of 50'. He said that the approved subdivision did not provide these lot sizes, so it was inevitable that this would happen somewhere, and it happened on this lot. He explained that what caused it was lot 59 on the corner was only 50' wide, and they had to have 10' from the street, which put a 5' on the interior side. He further _ explained thatwhen they came to lot 40, the other corner lot, it was-the.same.situation...He said it ended up that both ends were pushing to one, and it ended up on this lot. He said they did not do it on purpose, and he would not operate that way to do it on purpose, as he is usually under time constraints. He said he had a buyer who was ready to purchase the house. Boardmember Rotz asked if Mr. Diana had contacted any of the neighbors. Mr. Diana said he had spoken to several of the immediate neighbors. He said he sent 55 letters, one to every homeowner in the subdivision. He said when he purchased the subdivision it was already approved and ready for him to obtain permits and begin offsites. He commented that he had built every house in the subdivision. Boardmember Neyer asked if a subdivision was planned, don't they plan the lot sizes so that no matter what house product went in it would fit with the appropriate setbacks? Mr. Diana responded that made sense, however, he said he has a 35' wide house that fits on all of the lots which are 55' wide. He said this house was a 35' wide house on a 50' lot but the problem was the two 5' side yards coming together. He said it was inevitable. Boardmember Neyer said if Mr. Diana were to put a larger house on one of the lots, it would not even fit. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 Mr. Diana responded that all of his houses were 35' wide. He said they differ only in depth, or if they were a two-story. He said it was the same plan from the people he purchased the subdivision from. He speculated that perhaps it was an engineering oversight. The first speaker, Mr. Harry De Prins, 6235 West Navajo Drive, Glendale, said he supports this application. He noted that he was on lot 55, the parcel to the left of the subject site. He noted that the applicant was asking for a variance to allow a setback of 7' 5" on each side. He asked if this house was going to be a two-story house. He said the lot was a bit narrow and although it could probably accommodate a two-story house, he would not want to see that go in. Boardmember Rotz said Mr. De Prins spoke of a 7' 5" side setback, when it was actually a 5' side setback that they were discussing. Mr. De Prins said the original plan showed 7' 5" on each side. Chairperson Capek asked if Mr. De Prins's house was a one-story. He clarified that Mr. De Prins's concern was that he did not want a two-story next door to him. Mr. De Prins said his house was a one-story, and he did not want a two-story house next door to him. The next speaker, Cindy Cooper, 6227 West Navajo Drive, Glendale, which was lot 53, the house on the other side. She said the house should match the rest of the neighborhood, and asked what the other options were, rather than a house,because she was not thrilled with the close side yard setbacks. She was also concerned with the possibility of a two-story house being built there because it would make the lot look even smaller. She said she would not mind seeing a house there, but not a two-story. The last speaker, Mr. Edmund Martocchia, 8329 North 61st Lane, Glendale, said this appeared to be a mistake that was made in good faith. He said the lot would be a little narrow, and that would be okay, but he did not want to see a one-of-a-kind house go in there, as it would be an eyesore. He said he wanted to keep the integrity of the development, and had no objection to a single-story house going in there on a lot which would be a little narrower than the rest. Mr. Bill Diana said the house was already pre-sold, was a single-story house, and was only 35' wide. He said if the house on the far right has a projection which sticks out a bit which is for a media center and fireplace. He said he is allowed to project into the side yard 2', but this house has no projection on the side. He clarified that the 7' 5" side setback was originally an idea that he had. He said 5' and 5' would be 10'. He said if they had centered the house on the lot, they would end up with 13' 5" between houses rather than 10' on one side and 15' on the other side. He said in his opinion, that was a better situation, but he would go along with whatever the Board decided. Chairperson Capek asked if the staff had any other comments. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 Mr. Torts identified for the record that the request is for a 10-foot building separation as shown in the report, which would comprise two adjacent 5' and 5' side yard setbacks. He said staff would have a concern with the other option Mr. Diana spoke of with 7' 5" on either side, because in that case not only would the side yard setbacks not be met, but the minimum building separations on both sides would not be met. Chairperson Capek closed the public hearing on ZV-98-04. Boardmember Coningford MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-98-04. Boardmember Rotz SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Rotz asked if the Board should consider amending the motion to stipulate a single- story house be built on this lot, as that appeared to be a concern from the neighbors. Mr. Flaaen suggested that it might be appropriate for the Board to stipulate that the lot be limited to a single-story house as the neighbors would prefer a single-story. He added that in the event that this particular sale should fall through, the limitation would be on the lot so that another home could be built but not a two-story. Boardmember Capek asked if such an amendment or stipulation would preclude adding onto the house at a later date. Mr. Flaaen responded that if the variance was granted based upon the stipulation that the lot only have a one-story house, that would be correct. BOARDMEMBER ROTZ AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STIPULATE THAT THE LOT BE RESTRICTED TO A ONE-STORY HOUSE. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Chairperson Capek called for a roll call vote on the AMENDED MOTION, and the AMENDED MOTION passed unanimously. Boardmember Capek said he concurred with staff that the findings had been met. Boardmember Koehler said he was very reluctant to support this variance. He felt the situation had been created by the design of the subdivision and compounded by the location of the improvements placed on these properties. He said there were special circumstances, but felt they were self imposed. He said that was partially alleviated by the fact that this was going to occur someplace in this subdivision. He noted that three of the people most affected by this variance had attended the meeting and said they would rather have a single-story house built on this lot and have it fit in with the neighborhood rather than have one house stand out individually. He felt finding #4 had not been met and it was detrimental to the entire neighborhood, but if the neighbors wanted this, then he would reluctantly support this variance. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page8 Boardmember Rotz said that there are times when a variance request does not meet all of the findings but common sense says it is the right thing to do to approve it. Boardmember Coningford said he would support the variance. Boardmember Neyer said she felt that finding#1 was not imposed by the builder, so that had been met. She felt that finding#3 had been met, because it would be a worse detriment to the property to leave it as a trash dump and an empty field. She said it would be better as a house, so she supported the variance request. Chairperson Capek said that after viewing the site, he came to a decision. However, he was swayed by the neighbors' support at the hearing. He said he felt it was self imposed, and it was a poor design. He said the alternative would be to change the house product, and that became a concern for the neighbors. Chairperson Capek restated the motion with the amendment, and called for a roll call vote. The MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mr. Diana said he just found out that he could not obtain a building permit for 15 days after the variance was approved. Mr. Flaaen responded that the reason for the 15-day delay was that the Board's decision was appealable to the City Council or to the Superior Court. In addition, he said anyone in the neighborhood couldfile an appeal. He explained that if Mr. Dianagot a building permit and this decision was appealed, anything that was already built on the property would be at his own risk. Mr. Diana said the interested parties were present at the meeting. Mr. Flaaen explained that anyone in the neighborhood could file an appeal. He said as long as Mr. Diana was willing to proceed recognizing the risk of an appeal he could obtain a permit. Mr. Diana asked if he could get every homeowner in the subdivision to sign that they were not going to appeal the Board's decision. Mr. Flaaen responded that would be okay but he would still need to work out an agreement with Mr. Diana documenting that he would be willing to accept any risk. Chairperson Capek asked if there was any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Capek asked for the Planning Staff Report. There was none. Chairperson Capek asked for Board Comments and Suggestions. There were none. There was no further business. April 9, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 Boardmember Rotz made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Coningford SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 17C2-r? Cati-VJ/0 Nan Robinson, Recording Secretary