Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 8/13/1998 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,AUGUST 13, 1998 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson Chenaie, with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Kathe Neyer Daniel Drew Gordon Cheniae Ron Piceno Robert Koehler ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney Ricardo Toris,Planner Thomas Sedlmeier, Senior Planner Molly Hood, Planner Nan Robinson, Recording Secretary Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary Chairperson Chenaie 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 Koehler made a MOTION to approve the June 11, 1998, minutes. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Chairperson Chenaie called for Business From the Floor. There was none. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 Chairperson Chenaie asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Chenaie 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 Chenaie then explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Chenaie called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ZV-98-11 A request for a variance to allow a 10-foot west side yard setback where 15 feet is the minimum required in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) zoning district, at 6921 West Stockman Road. Ricardo Toris presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings 1 and 4. Whether or not it met findings 2 and 3 was debatable. He asked if the Board had any questions. Boardmember Drew asked if the original property showed a 10-foot side yard setback when the property was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Gehr. Mr. Toris responded that the applicant purchased the property in 1997, and the side yard setbacks shown in the Zoning Ordinance were 15 feet. Boardmember Piceno asked what the circumstances were for the nearby lot which was given a similar variance. Mr. Toris responded that the variance was because the property owner had begun construction without a permit and was cited by Code Enforcement. He then came and appealed to the Board, and was granted the variance. Boardmember Piceno asked if the architect was not aware of the setbacks when the house was designed for the owner. Mr. Toris responded that he was unsure, and perhaps the property owner could respond to that question. Chairperson Chenaie called the applicant to speak. Arthur Gehr, 6921 West Stockman Road, Glendale, thanked the Community Development Group and the Board for assisting him through the process. He said when he purchased the lot in September of 1997, he was given a deed restriction and final plat which showed 10-foot side yard setbacks. He said from that information, the house was designed. He explained that after the conceptual plot plan was prepared and taken to the City of Glendale, it was discovered that the side setbacks were actually 15 feet. He said they then tried to re-design the home as it was set on the lot, but they could not. Mr. Gehr then addressed the four findings: (1) He felt there August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 were special circumstances because the City annexed the property in 1979, and then changed the Zoning Ordinance requirements in 1993. He said when they purchased the lot in 1997 they relied on the setbacks which were shown on the recorded plat. He reiterated that the situation was not self-imposed because the City had changed the setbacks. (2) Mr. Gehr said they felt deprived of privileges which other owners enjoyed in Arrowhead Estates 3, as similar variances had been granted on nearby homes. (3) Mr. Gehr explained they were requesting a 10-foot setback on the west side of their lot. He said it was the minimum distance needed to alleviate the property's hardship. He said the 10-foot setback also corresponds with the recorded plat. He said a 23-foot, 3-inch side yard setback was proposed on the east side of their lot. He said this distance is more than double what is required, and this area would accommodate the side-entry garage. (4) With regard to finding 4, he said that granting this variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He said they had spoken with many neighbors and there was no opposition. He said some of the neighbors wrote letters in support. He asked the Board to approve his request for a variance. Chairperson Chenaie asked if the Board had any questions. Boardmember Piceno asked Mr. Gehr if their architect was aware of the 15-foot setback. Mr. Gehr responded that the architect did not know the setback had been changed to 15 ft. Boardmember Koehler asked if the neighbor to the west was Mr. Young. He said the Board had received a letter from him in support. Mr. Gehr responded that was correct. Boardmember Koehler asked if Mr. Gehr's architect had considered the amount of space that would be available to make a turn to put a car into the garage. Mr. Gehr said they had considered it and that it would be close,but would work. As there were no speaker cards, Chairperson Chenaie asked if Mr. Gehr wanted to make a closing statement. Mr. Gehr said he and his wife had lived here since 1981. He said they had spent the last two years looking for a home all over the Valley. He said they finally found this lot, fell in love with it, and designed their custom dream home. He asked the Board to approve his variance request. Chairperson Chenaie asked if staff had any other comments. Mr. Torts noted that staff had received one more letter of support for the application, which had been distributed to the Board at the meeting. Chairperson Chenaie closed the public hearing on ZV-98-11. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-11. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler said the plat plan was recorded with the 10-foot setback and several years later the revised Zoning Ordinance changed the setbacks, and so he believed there were special circumstances. In addition, he felt neighbors had already received variance approvals for similar requests. He said he felt all four findings had been met and he supported the motion. Boardmember Neyer said she agreed with Boardmember Koehler. She said Mr. Gehr had made attempts to change the plan of the house on the lot, and had done everything in good faith. She also felt the four findings had been met. Boardmember Drew had no comment. Boardmember Piceno said the applicant came forward in good faith. He said he supported the motion. Chairperson Chenaie said he felt findings 1 and 4 had been met, but 2 and 3 were debatable. However, during the meeting he felt it had been debated and items 2 and 3 had been met. In addition, he said there was a precedent in the neighborhood whereby this type of variance had been approved in the past. He noted that the immediate homeowner to the west had no problem with the approval of the variance, and he did not have a problem with the approval of this variance. Chairperson Chenaie called for a Roll Call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ZV-98-13: A request for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 420 spaces to 36 spaces in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district, at 7811 North Glen Harbor Boulevard. Thomas Sedlmeier presented the application, reviewing the site and the request. He concluded his presentation by stating that the request appeared to meet all four of the Required Findings. He said if the Board decided to grant this variance, it should be subject to the following stipulation: 1. This variance shall apply only if the total number of employees on the site does not exceed one employee for every 3,200 square feet of building area. Mr. Sedlmeier asked if the Board had any questions. Chairperson Chenaie asked if the Board had any questions. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Boardmember Neyer noted that the present warehouse was larger than the proposed addition. She asked what the 83 existing parking spaces was based on. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that when the original project was approved, the parking spaces were approved at staff level, using a rationale similar to that being used for the parking requirements in this request. He said there were no problems with the existing parking ratio, it was just approved under a different process. Boardmember Neyer asked what uses there would have to be for that building to require the 420 parking spaces. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that labor-intensive uses such as a steel mill, or an auto assembly plant might require more spaces. Boardmember Drew noted that a statement had been made that all employees would not be at the building at the same time. He asked if there was going to be a staggering of shifts. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that the old parking standard for Industrial was one parking space for every three employees. He said now for 50 new employees there will be 1.4 parking spaces. He said no matter what time the employees came in for work, there would be enough parking spaces. Boardmember Drew asked if Mr. Sedlmeier saw any problems with the proposed amount of parking spaces for the number of employees. Mr. Sedlmeier said no. As there were no more questions from the Board, Chairperson Chenaie asked the applicant to make his presentation. Dwayne G. Lewis, 3040 North 44th Street, Phoenix, thanked the staff for their assistance with the application and with the citizen participation plan. He said staff had presented the application well and he had no further comments. Boardmember Chenaie asked if Mr. Lewis could give any additional background on the number of employees who would be working there, and how they would stagger the shifts. Mr. Lewis responded that he was unsure, although he knew there would be some staggering of the shifts. He said typically there are plenty of parking spaces for the employees, but there seemed to be a need for more parking during the holidays. Chairperson Chenaie said he viewed the site on Monday afternoon, and there were approximately 30 cars in the parking lot, out of 83 spaces. He said it appeared there were plenty of spaces for the employees. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 Boardmember Koehler said he viewed the site on Tuesday, and he also saw approximately 30 cars, and most of the parking spaces were vacant. He asked the applicant if he planned to move the truck parking off of the property to directly south of the facility to the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Lewis responded that the truck parking on the east side of the existing building will remain. He said there had been discussion of providing additional truck parking in phase two. Boardmember Koehler asked if in an emergency situation, if the truck parking area could be used by the employees for additional parking spaces. Mr. Lewis responded that was correct. Chairperson Chenaie asked if Mr. Lewis wanted to make a closing statement. He did not. Chairperson Chenaie asked if staff had any additional comments. Mr. Sedlmeier noted that staff had received two letters in support of this application, copies of which had been distributed to the Board. Chairperson Chenaie closed the public hearing on ZV-98-13. Boardmember Neyer made a MOTION TO APPROVE ZV-98-13 with the stipulation recommended by staff. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED THE MOTION. Boardmember Neyer said she agreed with staff that all four findings had been met, and she supported the Motion. Boardmember Drew said he agreed that the four findings had been met. Boardmember Piceno said he saw no problems with the application. Boardmember Koehler said he concurred with the other Boardmembers' comments. Chairperson Chenaie said he concurred with the comments by the other Boardmembers. Chairperson Chenaie called for a Roll Call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ZV-98-14 1. A request for a variance to reduce the required side-yard setback on the west and south property lines from 15 feet to 0 feet in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 2. A request for a variance to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) from .3 to .47. 3. A variance to reduce the required 20% net site landscaping to 11.22%. The property is located at the southwest corner of 58th Avenue and Colter. The applicant is Lynne Lagarde for Jon and April Riggins. Prior to staff presenting the application, Chairperson Chenaie asked the Deputy City Attorney to advise the Board on the case. Rick Flaaen said the Board had received numerous letters from numerous parties regarding this variance request. He said a number of issues had been raised in those letters, which he wanted to address. He said one issue was regarding a 20-foot easement on the north and west side of the property. He said the applicant had requested the City abandon that easement and the car wash had indicated they had some sort of property right or interest in that easement. He said the issue of the easement was not before the Board to address and did not have any relevancy to the findings for this variance. He said whether or not the easement would be abandoned by the City would be discussed and decided by the City Council. He reminded the Board that they did not need to concern themselves with that particular issue. Mr. Flaaen further advised the Board that any discussions regarding the Conditional Use Permit will be addressed by the Planning Commission and should not be heard before this Board. He reminded the Board that they should focus on, and ask the speakers to focus on, the four findings with regard to this variance request only. He reminded the Board that this hearing was not for the purpose of review of the abandonment of the easement, nor was it for the Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Chenaie asked staff to present the application. Molly Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and the three variance requests. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet finding number one, but whether it met findings two, three or four was debatable. She said if the Board decided to grant the variance requests, they should be subject to the following two stipulations: 1. The building or wall height at the property line shall not exceed 10 feet. 2. The variances are only applicable to a self-storage and recreational vehicle storage facility and shall become null and void if the property develops with another use. Ms. Hood noted that two letters had been distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. She asked if the Board had any questions. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 8 Boardmember Neyer asked if the FAR meant the intensity of how many buildings were in the area. Ms. Hood responded that the FAR(Floor Area Ratio) is the total floor area of all the buildings on the site divided by the total land area. She said it does represent the intensity of buildings on the site. Boardmember Neyer asked if the landscaping shown on the diagram was what was proposed. Ms. Hood responded that the diagram was a conceptual plan for purposes of discussion. She said the landscaping would be approved during design review process at staff level. Boardmember Drew asked if the general amount of landscaping was proposed at 11.2% or at 20%. Ms. Hood said the diagram represented the 11.2% landscaping as proposed by the applicant. Chairperson Cheniae commented that there had been general discussion regarding the citizen participation plan. He said that during some of the neighborhood meetings there had been people who were concerned about the perimeter landscaping, not necessarily the internal landscaping. He asked if it was the opinion of the Design Review Team that the amount of landscaping shown on the conceptual plan was adequate. Ms. Hood responded that the 11.2% landscaping as shown on the conceptual plan met the 20- foot landscape strip typically required along street frontages by the Landscape Ordinance. She explained that the applicant was requesting a variance for the total on-site landscaping. She said the City's Landscape Architect had not yet reviewed the proposed landscaping material for this site. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the conceptual plan is what people looked at during the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Hood responded that it was. Boardmember Neyer said with regard to the stipulation of the building height not to exceed 10 feet, she asked Ms. Hood to identify that area on the conceptual plan. She asked what was on the other side of the wall at that point. Ms. Hood said there would be self-storage buildings along the perimeter of the site. She said the stipulation would apply to the buildings on the property lines. Boardmember Neyer asked what the building heights could be in the other areas of the site. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 Ms. Hood responded that in the C-2 zoning district the height limitation is 30 feet. She said the applicant has proposed 10-foot high storage units on all sides. Boardmember Koehler asked where the ingress and egress would be. Ms. Hood identified the access points proposed off of 59th Avenue, and also identified the fire/emergency access point off of Colter. Boardmember Drew asked if all of the outside buildings could be 30 feet high, and staff was wanting to add a stipulation that the walls could not exceed 10 feet. Ms. Hood responded that the applicant proposed buildings 10 feet high. Because they are requesting a 0 setback, she said a stipulation should be added to limit the height of the buildings on the property lines to 10 feet. Boardmember Drew asked if the same stipulation could be added to the area on 58th Avenue and on Colter. Ms. Hood said there will be buildings along 58th Avenue and also along Colter, but they will not be located right on the property line, and, therefore, the existing stipulation wouldn't apply. As there were no further questions for staff, Chairperson Chenaie called the applicant to make her presentation. Lynne Lagarde, of Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P.C., 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000, Phoenix, spoke representing the owners, Jon and April Riggins. She said the strict application of the zoning regulations placed an unfair burden on her clients. She pointed out that the parcel was irregularly shaped, and had extremely limited frontage onto 59th Avenue. She said the parcel did have large frontages on minor streets, 58th Avenue and Colter. She identified that along those two streets there is a 25-foot building setback. She said because of the amount of street frontage, it impacts the developability of the property. Ms. Lagarde pointed out that these conditions of the property were not self-imposed. She said this property had been in the Riggins family since they had farmed it. She said Jon and April Riggins had not always been in control of the property, other family members had. She noted that when the shopping center property to the south was purchased, the owner only wanted to buy an additional 10 feet north of the existing alley. She said that formed a south border to that property. She said when the car wash was purchased, there had been a long-term lease on the property that Mr. Riggins' father had entered into. She explained that the car wash property was sold by other family members. She said Jon and April Riggins had no control over which parcels were previously sold. She said what the Riggins' were left with was a remainder parcel. She said it was up to Jon and April Riggins to find an appropriate use for the remainder parcel, and they have proposed a self-storage. Ms. Lagarde pointed out that the application of the August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 10 regulations would deprive this owner of enjoying certain privileges and rights that were enjoyed by other properties with the same C-2 classification. Ms. Lagarde said this property is subjected to more restrictive regulations than adjacent developed properties with regard to setbacks, landscaping, and FAR. She noted that some properties in the area have no setbacks, and some have no landscaping, as they were built prior to the current requirements. She also noted that this was an infill parcel surrounded by existing development that had other standards. Ms. Lagarde clarified the variance request regarding the setbacks. She identified the property lines on the conceptual plan where a 6-foot wall could be built without a variance. She said what the applicant wanted to do was to put the buildings right up to the property lines and build them at 10 feet high. She said if they built the 6-foot wall, theywould have the 6-foot wall, a 15-foot (setback) "dead area" which would create security, maintenance and loitering problems. She said they were requesting a variance to allow the 10-foot building right up to the property line rather than the 6-foot wall setback to avoid creating this "dead area". She said Mr. Riggins would be amenable to a stipulation limiting all perimeter buildings to 10 feet because that is all he intends to do. Ms. Lagarde said the applicant was not asking for a variance on the perimeters. She said where the applicant would normally be required to put 25 feet of landscaping, he put 30 feet. She said the applicant was adding extra landscaping in front of the buildings along the perimeter. She noted that the landscaping is seen from the street, and the interior cannot be seen. She explained that is why the applicant was putting the landscaping around the outside rather than the interior. She commented that the 20%requirement for landscaping on a 7-acre property would take up about 1.4 acres. She added that when they met with the neighbors they were satisfied with the landscaping on the exterior. Ms. Lagarde addressed the FAR variance request. She said the .47 FAR was well within or below the FAR's in the area. She noted that this property was in an older, more mature area of the City which previously had different FAR standards. She identified other properties and their FAR's that were in the same vicinity, and she also identified the South Grand Avenue Employment Center and noted that it was within several blocks of this property. She said the FAR in the South Grand Avenue Employment Center was .5. She said the applicant's property was very close to an area which allows that kind of FAR. She said the applicant's site plan had been well designed and that being able to put the buildings on the perimeter rather than the "no man's land" would be an improvement. She said the perimeter landscaping is more than adequate and meets the intent of the code. She said there is no detrimental effect on adjacent properties or surrounding neighbors. Ms. Lagarde said with regard to the landscaping, it does not affect the exterior appearance of the project because from all of the public streets, they meet or exceed the required street landscape requirements. She said the applicant had created wider aisles to accommodate wider vehicles and provide easier drive-through conditions in the interior of the project. She said the applicant met with neighbors, including Joyce Clark and Bill Norgren of the O'Neil Ranch Association and the West Glendale Coalition. They expressed no concerns with the proposal, as long as an August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 11 adequate amount of landscaping is placed in the perimeter areas. She said the applicant was in agreement with both stipulations recommended by staff, and could also add a stipulation limiting all perimeter buildings to 10 feet. Ms. Lagarde noted that the Board had received letters from the car wash owner to the west and the shopping center owner to the south. She said they were a very disguised attempt for the adjacent property owners to get from the Riggins' free use of their property. She reminded the Board that the only thing before them was the variance requests. She said they had continued, even before this meeting, to work with Mr. Dicker to address legitimate issues with the neighbors. She said she would answer any questions the Board may have. Boardmember Piceno asked if having the buildings on the perimeter would impact the FAR. Ms. Lagarde responded it would impact the FAR. Boardmember Piceno said he was interested in the perimeter wall and had concerns that it would provide a screen for illegal activity. Ms. Lagarde responded it would be a 10-foot decorative wall. Boardmember Piceno said he was interested in the perimeter wall to provide a screen. He asked if the applicant had any security concerns. Ms. Lagarde said the applicant had a security plan including video cameras, gated access, and state-of-the-art monitoring for security. Boardmember Koehler commented that there would probably be a speaker from Fennemore & Craig, as they had indicated they would be there in opposition to any construction on the south side of the property. He asked if there had been a problem communicating with Fennemore & Craig. Ms. Lagarde said the contact that had taken place was between Mr. Riggins and Mr. Dicker. She said she did not receive a letter from Fennemore Craig until a day or so before this meeting, which accounted for her delayed response to the letter. She said Mr. Riggins and Mr. Dicker had spoken by telephone, and Mr. Riggins thought he had clarified where the property line was to the south. He initially had shown that property line adjacent to the alley, but it was actually 10 feet north of the alley. She said a survey was re-drawn which reflected the location of the 10-foot strip in addition to the alley, and the survey was provided to Mr. Dicker at this meeting. Boardmember Drew asked what the height of the perimeter walls or buildings would be to the north and to the east on the property. Ms. Lagarde responded that all of the buildings would be 10 feet in height. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 12 As there were no further questions from the Board, Chairperson Chenaie called the first speaker. Mr. Bryan Moody, and attorney with Warner, Angle, Roper&Hallam, PLC, 3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500, Phoenix, spoke representing Mr. Slowiak, trustee of the ATS Trust, who owned the car wash property. He said his client was in opposition to this variance, and he felt that Mr. Riggins did not meet the required findings. Mr. Moody noted that the first required finding was that ... "the special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, including size, shape, etc., were not self-imposed by the owner...". He said contrary to what Ms. Lagarde stated, at one point Mr. Riggins, through a trust, conveyed the property to Mr. Slowiak. He identified Tab #1 in a packet of information which he distributed to the Board. Under Tab #1 was a Warranty Deed. He began to identify J.A. Riggins Jr. As the Jon Riggins who was sitting in the meeting. The Jon Riggins in the meeting said that was not him on the Warranty Deed,but his uncle. Mr. Moody apologized for the confusion and moved on to his next point. He asked the Jon Riggins who was present in the meeting if he was the signator on the Foodmaker, Inc. document under Tab #3, or if that also was his uncle. Mr. Riggins responded that the signature was that of another family member. Mr. Moody apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Riggins and Ms. Lagarde. He said this was a situation where there were many similar names on documents, which made it difficult to determine who were the actual owners of property. However, he said Findings 2, 3 and 4 still must be met. He referred to Finding 2, .. "Due to the special circumstances.... ". He said comparing his property to other properties in the area, Mr. Riggins states it would not allow him to develop his property or use it in an appropriately economically viable manner. However, he said this is a detrimental effect to the owner, not to the property. He said Mr. Riggins' complaint is that the property, as set forth without the variance, could not earn him enough money. He said as far as he knew, that was not a reason to approve a variance request. Mr. Moody referred to Finding 3, ..."the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship...". He said the Planning staff had already stated that the need for the variance could be eliminated if Mr. Riggins' site plan was re-designed. He then referred to Finding 4, ..."granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property adjoining the property, the surrounding property, or the City in general...". He said he believed that this variance would. effect Mr. Slowiak's property, and before the project could commence, Mr. Riggins must also obtain an abandonment of the easement. He asked if the Board had any questions. There were no questions from the Board to Mr. Moody. Chairperson Chenaie called the next speaker. Christopher Callahan, an attorney with Fennemore Craig, 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600, Phoenix, spoke representing Mr. Dicker and GVD Commercial Properties, the owner of the shopping center to the south of the site. Mr. Callahan said that Mr. Dicker had worked with the City to keep the shopping center occupied and free from vandalism and graffiti. He said Mr. Dicker was concerned with the continued viability and success of the shopping center. He said when Mr. Dicker first learned of this proposal, he tried to meet with or speak with Mr. Riggins to August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 13 come to a resolution. Mr. Callahan said Mr. Dicker received no response from Mr. Riggins until a letter of July 28th. After that letter,Mr. Dicker and Mr. Riggins communicated briefly, but Mr. Riggins could not communicate any more as he was going out of town. Mr. Callahan said this was a rush to judgment situation, and felt there would be no harm in the Board continuing this application to a later meeting. He identified that Mr. Dicker purchased the shopping center property from members of the Riggins' family. He said he made the same error Mr. Moody had made when he saw signatures on deeds, thinking it was the applicant. He said it might not have been the applicant's signature, but it was members of that same family. He said when Mr. Dicker purchased the property, there was an alley that ran from 58th to 59th Avenue. Mr. Dicker made certain assumptions about what that alley was, and he bought a 10-foot strip of land to the north of that alley, toward Mr. Riggins' property. Mr. Callahan said the interesting situation was that the driveway going into Mr. Dicker's property was at one location, fairly far north. He said if you take a 10-foot strip north of that driveway, it goes right up to the end of the pavement, to where the light standards are. He identified that if you go over to the 59th Avenue area, there is an irregularity. He said the driveway is located a little further south. He said the assumption was that the alley ran through that area at the northern area, and based on that, Mr. Dicker has maintained that property, had it paved, had the light standards upgraded, maintained them, paid electricity for them, and one of the concerns that Mr. Dicker has is that if the buildings go in as Mr. Riggins has proposed, Mr. Dicker will lose all that. Mr. Callahan said this was an adverse possession matter which was not before this Board. However, he said this was one of the issues that he hoped could be resolved if the application was continued. Mr. Callahan said there were very serious concerns about whether Mr. Riggins had met the four required findings. He said Mr. Riggins must show some hardship to the property that was not of his own doing. He noted that all of the Riggins' current property, with the car wash property, and the shopping center property, was originally all owned by the Riggins' family. He said the Riggins' family made whatever decisions they made in terms of which properties to sell. Mr. Riggins has what is left of the Riggins' family property. He said that whatever configuration that parcel has, whatever frontage it has on 59th, 58th, or Colter, is a result of a conscious decision by the Riggins' family. He said Mr. Riggins cannot come to the Board and say he did not make any decisions, it was his uncle or his father. Mr. Callahan said Mr. Riggins is bound by the Riggins' family decisions because he is in privity with them. He said if it is a hardship it is of their own doing. Mr. Callahan said he did not feel there was a hardship involved with this property. He asked if Ms. Lagarde had told the Board that Mr. Riggins cannot develop this property if they comply with the setbacks, or if they comply with the FAR. He said what she had shown the Board was a site plan that did not comply with them. He said if they don't get the variance approved, then they will have to re-do their site plan. He said it is not a hardship. Mr. Callahan identified the first five self-storage facilities' FARs as submitted by Ms. Lagarde. He said the last two FARs were added by him, including 5150 West Camelback (one mile from the subject site) and 5801 West San Miguel (3/4 mile from the subject site) which had FARs of .26 and .36,respectively. He said mini-storages can function viably in full compliance with a .3 August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 14 FAR. He said there was no need for a variance with regard to the FAR. He asked why the information on FARs on those last two parcels had not been cited to the Board. Mr. Callahan asked the Board to look at the setback requirements identified on the last page of the attachments to the staff report. He said it showed new self-storages in Glendale all in C-2 zoning. He said they all have the required setbacks. He said if the Board looked at the various parcels, the lot sizes, and compare them to the Riggins' property, the building square footage for Mr. Riggins exceeds the lot square footage of every example that was cited by Ms. Lagarde. In fact, he said it exceeded every example except for the last two which he just cited. Mr. Callahan said this was a case of a developer, Mr. Riggins, who was trying to squeeze every dime he can out of this property. He wants as many units as possible, and wants to make as much money as possible. He said the fact that a person cannot make as much money as they would like to does not establish a hardship case. Mr. Callahan said there were some very real concerns with the viability of the shopping center, in terms of the limited space for trucks to turn around behind the center, for parking, and for the easement. He further stated that there was also the adverse possession claim that, if necessary, would be brought before a court. He said the applicant had not met the required findings for a variance. He said if there was any hardship due to the configuration of the property- and he was not sure if there really was, as most mini-storages are on irregularly-shaped parcels - it is due to Mr. Riggins' family's own creation. He asked the Board to deny the request for a variance, and offered to answer any questions they might have. Boardmember Koehler asked if the alley behind the shopping center was 10 feet or 12 feet. Mr. Callahan responded that he was unsure,but he thought it was 20 feet. Boardmember Koehler asked if those buildings are built as the applicant had proposed, would it present a problem for the trucks to turn around. Mr. Callahan said he there was a very serious concern with the ability of the trucks to turn around in that area. He said they are trying to determine that but they did not have time to due to the shortness of notice, and because of Mr. Riggins' non-communicativeness. Boardmember Koehler asked if the adverse possession matter was in the east and west corners of the south side of the property lot line, and just off of the 10-foot ownership. He said the alley was owned by Mr. Dicker and then in addition there was a 10-foot strip owned by Mr. Dicker. He asked if this area was just beyond that 10-foot strip. Mr. Callahan responded that he did not have a measuring tape when he was out there looking at it. He said if you come in at the northern edge of the 58th Avenue driveway, and you drive to the first light standard, there is a little over one car width from where your car is and where the pavement ends. As there were no further questions for Mr. Callahan, Chairperson Chenaie called the next speaker. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 15 Gerold Dicker, President of GVD Commercial Properties, Inc. said he had been a good citizen in the City of Glendale for many years. He said that he worked with staff when he purchased that shopping center, which was previously a Bayless grocery store. He said he worked hard with the City to clean up the area and to make the shopping center viable. He said he worked with City staff to put in a bus stop, landscaping, and stopping crime and graffiti in the shopping center. He said he would not be at the meeting if he did not feel this variance request would very negatively affect his property. He said Mr. Riggins did not approach him to work together to master plan the project. He said if large fences or buildings were built right along the property line, it would close the area up in such a way that the graffiti problem would return. He said it would end up on his side of the wall or building, and if Mr. Riggins would not be responsible for cleaning up the graffiti, he would have to do it. In addition, he said this would also create an area behind the shopping center where people could lurk or congregate, and cause more trouble. He said he knocked down 20,000 square feet of buildings on the shopping center to open it up more to help reduce crime and graffiti, and this would put him back into the same situation. He said Mr. Riggins never asked him to help master plan the property in conjunction with the shopping center. Mr. Dicker said they had offered Mr. Riggins ways to give him more visibility on 59th Avenue,perhaps a"no-build" area. He said there was no communication back from Mr. Riggins. Mr. Dicker said he offered Mr. Riggins money to re-plan the project in a way so that it does not encroach so closely on the back of his property. Mr. Riggins said the money was not enough. Mr. Dicker said he asked Mr. Riggins to delay this hearing to allow time to work out a solution, but Mr. Riggins refused, stating the hearing had to be on this date. He said when they tried to talk more to Mr. Riggins he was off on vacation. Mr. Dicker said they tried every step of the way to cooperate. He said the 10-foot walls of the buildings will definitely add to the security problem and graffiti issues. He said the variances will have a major negative impact on his shopping center. He said his business will be hurt, and so will the community. He commented that by allowing more intense uses, less planning and less cooperation is encouraged between adjacent owners. Chairperson Chenaie asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Dicker. Boardmember Neyer asked Mr. Dicker where the people are loitering. Mr. Dicker said right now they are not loitering because there is an open feeling to the shopping center, which was accomplished when he had many of the buildings removed. Boardmember Neyer asked if there was an open field behind Mr. Dicker's shopping center. Mr. Dicker responded that was correct, and inside the shopping center facing Camelback was open as well, because of the buildings he removed. He said the Police Department's records would reflect how much crime had been in the area prior to him remodeling the shopping center. He identified the buildings that had been torn down on an old plan of the shopping center. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 16 Boardmember Neyer asked what the distance was from the back of Mr. Dicker's shopping center to the 10-foot wall/building. Mr. Dicker responded he thought it was about 30 feet. He added that there were other concerns such as the driveway issue, and turnaround problems for trucks. Boardmember Piceno asked if Mr. Dicker would still be amenable to discussing these issues with Mr. Riggins. Mr. Dicker said he would. Boardmember Piceno asked if the variance for the setback on the south side of Mr. Riggins' property was not granted, if that would work for Mr. Dicker. Mr. Dicker responded that if the variance was not granted, then the planning of the project could move forward which might allow some of these issues to be resolved. He said there would be more open land available for the project to try to work things out. Boardmember Piceno asked if the setback was still set at 15 feet, and instead of a 10-foot wall they had landscaping, would this still be a problem for Mr. Dicker with regard to trucks turning around. Mr. Dicker responded that it would cause less problems with graffiti, vandalism, and crime, but there would still be some concern regarding trucks turning around. Boardmember Neyer asked Mr. Dicker if he opposed having a storage facility next door, what type of use would he prefer that would not affect his shopping center. Mr. Dicker responded that he would like to see that the access from 58th and 59th stays open for the community, he would have lower walls, and he would be sure there was some funding in place for graffiti clean-up. He said a poorly-planned project just dumps problems on the adjacent land owner, and the adjacent land owner then has to take care of it. He said if he planned a mini-storage he would plan it in a less intense manner. Boardmember Neyer asked if Mr. Dicker had any objection to the land being used for a storage facility. Mr. Dicker said he had no objection to the land being used for a storage facility, as long as it was well planned. Chairperson Chenaie called the next speaker. Jim Gough, a Real Estate Paralegal with Warner, Angle, Roper & Hallam, P.C., 3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500, Phoenix, Arizona, said his firm was representing Mr. Slowiak, and August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 17 he had prepared the material for the attorney, Bryan Moody. He asked if the Board would consider a continuance on this application. He referred to documents 1 and 3 in the packet he prepared for the Board. He said the assumption was made that those signatures belonged to the applicant, Jon Riggins, and it was discovered that those were not his signatures. He said they were a little confused as the wife of the applicant had shown as the same person who filed the bankruptcy application. He said he and the attorney representing Mr. Slowiak were confused as to the various Riggins' signatures, and he asked that the Board continue this application. Rick Flaaen said that he and staff did not receive a copy of the packet which Mr. Moody had provided to the Board, so he could not advise the Board. Chairperson Chenaie asked which deeds were in question. Mr. Gough identified the sections in the packet he had distributed to the Board, and identified the deeds where signatures were in question. Chairperson Chenaie said there were a number of issues brought before the Board that related to communication and timeliness. He said what he perceived was in the packet (the deeds, etc.) provided by Mr. Moody would not have much bearing on the authority and the decision the Board needed to make. He said the issues regarding the easement, the abandonment of the easement, the conditional use permit,were related to the case but were not being heard before the Board. He said to ask for a continuance at this late stage because of a lack of communication and bringing the incorrect documents before the Board was not something that he could support. Mr. Gough said they had no idea that Mr. Riggins (the applicant) was not one and the same as the Mr. Riggins who had transferred property to Jack in the Box (Foodmaker property). He said that went directly to the point of required finding #1,that Mr. Riggins (the applicant)had control of the property. He said this was key to their argument. Chairperson Chenaie said clarification of these issues regarding signatures would not sway his judgment as it related to the four required findings that he was charged with considering. Boardmember Koehler clarified that what Mr. Gough was suggesting was that if the Jack in the Box property was conveyed by a different Riggins, then the current owners were not directly responsible for the previous decision. Mr. Gough responded that one of their arguments had to do with control of the parcels. In addition, he said based on his research, it appears that the Riggins' signature (on the documents) matches the signature on file (on the application) with the Board. He said the indication that Mr. Riggins (the applicant) is not one and the same as the signatures on the deeds is an issue which needed to be resolved. Rick Flaaen advised the Board that the speaker needed to give the Board some indication of what additional evidence or information they intended to come back with if the Board did continue the application. He asked the Board to ask the speaker what purpose the continuance would serve August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 18 and identify the additional information they would submit to prove that Mr. Riggins (the applicant)was the signator on the documents. Chairperson Chenaie said he agreed with what Mr. Flaaen had said, and asked Mr. Gough to clarify. Mr. Gough said if Jon Riggins (the applicant)was one and the same as the grantor of the Slowiak property and the Food Maker property, then the condition was self-imposed by the applicant, and therefore does not meet the criteria of Required Finding 1. Chairperson Chenaie asked the Board if they felt they needed further information to evaluate this application for the three variances. He asked them if they felt that further information from Mr. Gough would have them contemplate a vote for a continuance. Boardmember Koehler said there was such a hodgepodge of conflicting information. The questions was did the current owners of the property put themselves into this predicament or was the existing parcel created by someone else. He asked Mr. Gough whom he represented in the preparation of the packet of information and documents. Mr. Gough stated that he represented Mr. Slowiak, the owner of the car wash. Chairperson Chenaie said there was a request by Mr. Gough for the Board to continue the hearing. He asked the Board if anyone wanted to continue this application. Rick Flaaen clarified that the speaker had the floor and had asked the Board to consider a continuance. Rick Flaaen suggested the Chair ask if there was a Motion for a continuance at this point. Chairperson Chenaie asked the Board if there was a Motion for a continuance. Rick Flaaen advised the Board that Ms. Lagarde had indicated she would like an opportunity to make a closing statement prior to the Board considering a Motion to continue the application. Ms. Lynne Lagarde addressed the last issue which had been raised by Mr. Gough regarding control of the Riggins' property. She said the signature on the sale of the property to Mr. Slowiak was Mr. Riggins' uncle, whose wife's name was Elaine. She said that was the car wash site. In addition, she said Mr. Riggins' (the applicant) father and uncle entered into a lease where the current Jack in the Box property is located. She said that lease was signed by the father and uncle. She further explained that at the time of Mr. Riggins' death, Mr. Riggins (the applicant) then became trustee of the property. She reminded the Board that the Jack in the Box property was under a long-term lease entered into by the applicant's father and uncle. She said when Mr. and Mrs. Riggins (the applicant)were trying to salvage what was left of the family holdings, they would have lost the Jack in the Box property and the subject property at a tax sale, had Mr. Riggins (the applicant) as trustee not sold the Jack in the Box property to the Bankruptcy Court. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 19 She confirmed that the signature on the sale of the Jack in the Box property was Mr. Jon Riggins' (the applicant). She felt that cleared up the issue of the signatures. She reiterated that this was family property, and not in the control of Jon and April Riggins (the applicants). Ms. Lagarde addressed the comments by Mr. Dicker's attorney. She said in June, 1997, Mr. Riggins sent Mr. Dicker a letter regarding his proposal for the self-storage facility, and the letter also invited Mr. Dicker to become a joint venture partner. Although that did not work out as a business deal, she said Mr. Dicker was well aware of what was being proposed for the property. She said Mr. Riggins also sent a letter to Mr. Dicker's office in California regarding the neighborhood meeting. This letter was returned from the California address. At that point, Mr. Riggins hand-delivered the letter to Mr. Dicker's local office. In addition, she said Mr. Riggins spoke to Mr. Dicker on the telephone. Ms. Lagarde said if the Board looked at the property they would be able to see that what is happening is that Mr. Dicker needs to use a portion of Mr. Riggins' property to make his shopping center work. She referred to the conceptual plan of the property and identified the 20- foot alley, and the 10-foot area which was purchased by Mr. Dicker when he purchased the shopping center. She said when Mr. Dicker purchased the shopping center, it was clear from reading the contract in the transaction:... "in no event shall the northern boundary of the property be greater than the 10 feet north of the existing City alleyway...". She said that provides a straight shot through the property, and there is an additional 10 feet where parking is. She said Mr. Dicker had the opportunity to purchase part of Mr. Riggins' land at that time, but he evidently felt this portion would be sufficient. However, she said he has enjoyed the use of Mr. Riggins' land in the meantime. She said she believed Mr. Dicker's trucks could navigate without problem in the area behind his store, and she said whether they constructed a 6-foot wall on the property line - which, she said they are allowed to do under the Ordinance - and if there is an easement along that area they will not build in the easement. However, she said where the property line is they will either build the 6-foot wall which is allowed, or they will build the 10- foot building. She said they are trying to avoid an area for people to lurk by putting the building directly up to the property line,rather than the wall, a dead area, and then the building. She said with regard to graffiti, she felt the shopping center building's walls were as good a target as any for graffiti. She said whether they build a 6-foot wall or a 10-foot wall, there may still be graffiti. She said in any event they plan to construct a decorative wall, and decorative walls deter graffiti. She said the variances are justified and she asked the Board to grant the variance requests. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the Board had any questions for Ms. Lagarde. Boardmember Neyer asked how the plan for the property would need to be redesigned to not need a variance. Ms. Lagarde responded that the applicant could build a 6-foot perimeter wall and move the buildings in 15 feet. She said regarding the landscaping, the applicant would put sufficient landscaping where it shows, without putting any in the center area. She said regarding the FAR variance, she said they were dealing with a large parcel and if it is all to be used for self storage, August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 20 self storage takes up a lot of land. She said they need to "even the playing field" with other properties which have similar FARs. She said in response to Mr. Callahan's statement regarding FAR's in the vicinity, she had not included the other two properties that Mr. Callahan referred to in her chart because those two properties are Industrially zoned. She said those two properties are not zoned C-2 like Mr. Riggins' property. She said the Industrially zoned properties have a different FAR requirement than C-2 and they cannot properly be compared. She said she believed .47 FAR was reasonable for the area and the zoning. Boardmember Neyer asked if the property's FAR was currently shown as .3. Ms. Lagarde responded that was correct. Boardmember Drew asked if the current FAR allowed the applicant to build additional buildings in the area identified for parking. He asked if it would allow the applicant to open up buildings all the way down and remove the RV parking. Ms. Lagarde responded that they could do that but that was not the plan. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant sold the property, if the next owner could remove all the RV parking and put buildings in their place. Ms. Lagarde responded that someone else could develop under the .47 FAR, if the use was self- storage. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant was the same Riggins who sold the Jack in the Box property. Ms. Lagarde responded that the applicant did sell the Jack in the Box property to the Bankruptcy Court in order to not lose it, or this property, due to taxes. Boardmember Drew asked who sold the property to the car wash. Ms. Lagarde responded that was the applicant's uncle and father, who entered into the lease with the car wash. Boardmember Drew said he understood that these originally were long-term leases to oil companies. Ms. Lagarde responded that was correct, and that they were long-term leases entered into by the applicant's uncle and father. Chairperson Chenaie asked if Ms. Lagarde wanted to make a closing statement. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 21 Ms. Lagarde said she felt the variance requests were justified and she asked that the Board grant them. Chairperson Chenaie said a speaker had asked the Board for a continuance, and he asked the Board if there was a Motion for Continuance. Boardmember Piceno asked if the applicant would want a continuance. Ms. Lagarde said that the applicant would prefer not to continue the case, and that a continuance would have devastating impacts on him. Chairperson Chenaie noted that there was no Motion for Continuance. He noted that this request was actually for three independent variances. Ray Jacobs responded that was correct, and that the Board could deal with each variance request separately. Chairperson Chenaie said that given the amount of information presented during this application, he wanted the Board to deal with each variance request individually. Ms. Hood pointed out to the Board that stipulations not pertaining to the specific variances requested may be addressed during the conditional use permit application process, during the Planning Commission hearing. Boardmember Drew asked if a stipulation could be added to limit the perimeter buildings on all sides to 10 feet. Mr. Jacobs responded that the applicant has to be granted the variances in order to apply for a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. He said they cannot submit this site plan as it exists today without a variance being granted. He said one of the approvals that a use permit requires is that it meets all the Ordinances' standards. The approval of the use permit requires that the site plan as part of that application,be approved with it, and that site plan would stipulate all the building heights on the site. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant could put a 30-foot building on the site. Rick Flaaen advised Boardmember Drew that the Board could stipulate the variance approval for a 0 setback to require all exterior buildings not exceed 10 feet, including all the buildings on the north and east sides of the property. Chairperson Chenaie said that was his understanding. He said the staff report referred to the "property line" and did not specifically identify the north and east sides. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 22 Ms. Hood clarified that the only buildings which would be on the property line would be the buildings where the variance is requested. She said the other two buildings would be located at a minimum 25-foot setback. Mr. Flaaen advised the Board that even without that stipulation, staff would address those issues during a use permit process and development review. However, without the stipulation, under the City Zoning Ordinance those buildings on the north and east side could be built to 30 feet. Boardmember Koehler asked if this would impact the interior buildings, or if they could be 30 feet tall. Ms. Hood responded that the height of the buildings would be addressed during the conditional use permit process and during design review. She said the approval of the conditional use permit would be stipulated to a specific site plan. Boardmember Drew addressed whether the FAR of .47, which is a ratio of square feet of building area to land area, included the square footage of a second floor building. Ms. Hood explained that the FAR is the gross floor area divided by the total land area, and so it would incorporated all of the square footage of a building, including a second floor. Chairperson Chenaie closed the public hearing on ZV-98-14. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE variance application ZV-98-14, Item #1 (a variance request to reduce the required side-yard setback on the west and south property lines from 15 feet to 0 feet in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district) subject to the two stipulations recommended by staff, and a third stipulation: 3. Any buildings or walls on the property line or perimeter do not exceed 10 feet in height. Chairperson Chenaie asked staff if these stipulations were to be attached to all three variance requests. Mr. Jacobs responded that stipulation number 1 would only be applicable to the first variance request, and that stipulation number 2 should be attached to each variance request because it is specific to the use. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler said he did not think the required findings had been met. He said he did not feel the parcel was irregularly shaped, and the property was not restricted in any way because of its configuration. He said he did not see any special circumstances. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 23 Boardmember Neyer said she felt that the configuration of the property was not the applicant's fault, and that a 10-foot building would be better than a 6-foot wall. She said she supported the Motion. Boardmember Drew said he was not in total agreement with what the applicant was asking for with regard to setbacks when the future was considered. He said the applicant seems to want what the nearby older properties have with regard to setbacks. He said for this property, a self- storage will be great, and it is a"man's right"to run his business and make his profit. He said he could go with the variance requests as long as the stipulations are there. Boardmember Piceno had no comment. Chairperson Chenaie said he felt that Required Finding#1 had been met. He said this was one of the most convoluted cases he had ever heard, and he had listened carefully to all of the evidence as it was presented. However, he said he felt Required Findings #2, 3, and 4 had not been met, and he could not support the Motion. Chairperson Chenaie called for a Roll Call vote, and the MOTION FAILED 3 - 2, with Boardmembers Koehler, Piceno, and Cheniae voting Nay. The MOTION WAS DENIED. Chairperson Chenaie addressed variance request #2, a variance to increase the maximum Floor Area Ration(F.A.R.) from .3 to .47. Boardmember Koehler said he had little objection to any configuration of the buildings within the properties, however, he said he was still not convinced that this request met all four of the Required Findings. However, he said this will be a low usage and low traffic building, so he could support the Motion. Boardmember Piceno said as long as the applicant felt the building was secure he had no problem with the .47 FAR. Boardmember Drew said he had a severe question on this one. He said the FAR was going from .3 to .47, with the building walls going in at the property line. He said when the applicant moves the buildings back in to meet the new code, that will drastically change the measurements from .3 and .47, because he will not have the square footage that he has to build. Therefore, he said, immediately there is a conflict with the .47 because he felt that number would have to go up above 5. Mr. Jacobs said the first variance only impacted 15 feet on two sides of the property. The subject property is a large parcel,the setback variance would not affect the FAR. Boardmember Drew said he had another problem. He said the minute the buildings were moved in 15 feet, and there is no restriction put in on the height, and the applicant builds to 30 feet, he is going to try to get the space back to .47. He said then it gets into the height issue. He said for August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 24 him to turn around and discuss two and holding it at .47, he would go back to the stipulation of all the outside property buildings not exceed 10 feet in height, even though they moved in 15 feet. He asked if he was able to say that now, when they were discussing the .47. Mr. Flaaen said Boardmember Drew could add that language as a stipulation to this second variance request if he chose. Boardmember Drew said he had no problem with the .47 FAR, but he wanted the stipulation added that the wall or building height would not exceed 10 feet on any perimeter building. Boardmember Neyer said she agreed with Boardmember Drew. Chairperson Chenaie said he had no problem with variance request #2 or the stipulation that Boardmember Drew had suggested. Boardmember Drew MADE A MOTION to approve variance request ZV-98-14, request #2, to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) from .3 to .47 with the stipulations that the building or wall height on the property on all perimeter sides shall not exceed 10 feet, and that the variance approval is only applicable to a self-storage, and shall become null and void if the property develops with another use. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Chenaie addressed variance request#2, a request to reduce the required 20% net site landscaping to 11.22%. Boardmember Neyer said she agreed that the landscaping inside the mini-storage facility would not be necessary. She said she was happy with the landscaping the applicant proposed to put in around the perimeter, and she would support the request. Boardmember Drew asked if the buildings were setback 15 feet, if the 11.22% site landscaping standard would change.. Mr. Jacobs responded that the setback would not damage the proposed site landscaping plan since it is located on the street frontages. Boardmember Drew said he had no problem with the landscaping. He said if the applicant was going to have to build a fence on his property line then he won't have any reason to landscape at that point. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 25 Boardmember Piceno said that for this type of facility, a mini-storage, he saw no significant adverse impact if the landscaping were reduced. Boardmember Koehler said he agreed, and saw no problem with the proposed 11.22% site landscaping. Chairperson Chenaie said he had no problem with this request. Boardmember Drew MADE A MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-14, variance request #3, with one stipulation: 1. The variance approval is only applicable to a self storage and RV storage, and shall become null and void ifthe property develops with any other use. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairperson Chenaie called for a Roll Call vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Chenaie asked if there was any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Chenaie asked for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Ray Jacobs advised the Board that he intends to have a workshop/orientation when the other two Board vacancies are filled. Chairperson Cheniae commented that this meeting was quite an initiation for the new members. He asked Mr. Jacobs if the other two appointments would be made and the workshop would be prior to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Jacobs responded that the City Council could not take action until September. Mr. Flaaen asked if there were any items scheduled for the September meeting. Mr. Jacobs responded there were items scheduled for the September meeting. Mr. Flaaen said he thought that Council will not have an opportunity to appoint anyone prior to the September Board of Adjustment meeting. He said it would hopefully be prior to the October meeting. Chairperson Chenaie asked for Board Comments and Suggestions. Boardmember Neyer welcomed the two new Board members. She asked why it seemed they kept running off the recording secretaries. August 13, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 26 Ms. Robinson responded that there had been some changes in staffing in her department and she had been assigned to record the Board of Adjustment meetings during the interim period. She explained that Ms. Douglas would now be the permanent recording secretary for the Board of Adjustment. There was no further business. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. `fly /Yob ZnTOO Nan Robinson,Recording Secretary