Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 12/10/1998 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,DECEMBER 10, 1998 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Neyer, with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Kathe Neyer Daniel Drew Ron Piceno Robert Koehler Richard Gitelson ABSENT: Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney Dave Prescott, Residential Planning Manager Susan Hacker, Planner Katie Douglas,Recording Secretary Vice Chairperson Neyer 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 requests 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 the members of the staff who were present. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for approval of the minutes from the November 12, 1998 meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes as written. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for Business From the Floor. There was none. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21,ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 2 Vice Chairperson Neyer asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Vice Chairperson Neyer 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. Vice Chairperson Neyer then explained the Board's hearing process. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ZV-98-22 A request by Craig Eisenberg, representing Thunderbird Properties, for a variance for three free-standing signs where two are allowed in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The 23.7 acre site is located at 5760 W. Thunderbird Road; the northeast corner of 59th Avenue and Thunderbird. Staff contact: Susan Hacker(Sahuaro District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all the required findings for a variance. Boardmember Drew asked why the ordinance applies to one project if it includes three separate properties or owners. Ms. Hacker responded that the property meets the definition of a project and shares entrances and parking. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant knew about the sign ordinance when they designed the infill. Ms. Hacker stated that the applicant was aware of the situation and they did make every effort to convince the existing businesses to go in on a joint sign. Both of the other two owners declined. Without the proposed third sign included in the variance, there would not be identification for the entrance to a major shopping center. Boardmember Drew asked if someone would be able to enter near the Blockbuster store and access the Safeway store. Ms. Hacker responded that this could not be done. Boardmember Drew asked if the two existing ways into Safeway would be off of Thunderbird, where the applicant wishes to put their sign and off 59th Avenue. Ms. Hacker stated that this is correct. Vice Chairperson Neyer called the applicant to speak. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22, ZV-98-23 Page 3 Lyle Richardson, 320 East McDowell, stated that they agree with the findings of the staff. He emphasized the fact that they did try to contact the property owners that had signs out there and the property owners declined the offer to participate in one single multi-tenant sign which would have enabled them to..complywith the_ordinance. He stated that they are in the unique situation where they have a piece of property with a major frontage without any ability to put a sign on it similar to one that is across the street. The Board had no questions. Mr. Richardson had no final comments. Vice Chairperson Neyer closed the public hearing on ZV-98-22. Boardmember Gitelson made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-22. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler asked if the sign would be on Thunderbird Road only and was informed by Ms. Hacker that this would be the case. Boardmember Koehler felt it would be unfair to deny the variance. He stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he saw no reason to stop the applicant from erecting a sign. Boardmember Piceno stated that he agreed with Staff. He felt the applicant made a good faith effort to get the adjoining property owners to participate in one sign. He would support the variance. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he also agreed with the Board. He felt that the signage situation was not the fault of the applicant. He stated that he supported the variance. He further stated that there is an excess of signs around the city and appealed to City to consider that issue in the future. Vice Chairperson Neyer stated that she, too, concurred with the Board. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ZV-98-21 A variance request by Los Vecinos Housing to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback where a twenty (20) foot perimeter setback is the minimum required in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The properties are located at 6520 and 6524 North 59th Drive. Staff contact: Elizabeth Logan(Ocotillo District). December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page4 Mr. Prescott presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all the required findings for a variance. Boardmember Dreww asked if the plans for the 45 foot x 35 foot home had been drawn yet. Mr. Prescott stated no, but the maximum width the house can be is 35 feet which will be submitted as a standard plan. Boardmember Drew stated that he went out and walked through the property which is quite narrow. He felt that if the house design were changed, the requested setback could then be greater than 5 feet. He noted that the apartment complex behind it has only a 2 foot setback. Mr. Prescott stated that it is possible that they could come in with a narrower house product. Generally, 30 feet is as narrow as you want to go and still have a garage a front door and a window. It is possible to use a plan with the front door on the side of the house. However, this could be a security risk as the doorway would not be facing the street and neighbors could not see it. It would be a different elevation from that of the existing neighborhood. Lauren Sandy, Housing Specialist, 5955 West Myrtle Avenue, Suite 1, stated that Los Vecinos is a non-profit housingdeveloper which works to qualify low income people to become first-time home buyers within the City of Glendale. They also try to do neighborhood revitalization and take either vacant or blighted properties and try to turn them into something that will fit within the neighborhood while increasing home ownership opportunities within the City. Ms. Sandy stated that the house to the south of the proposed project will be 12 feet from the property line and the one to the north will be 2 feet from the property line. She acknowledged that it is very narrow. She stated that the average setback in the area is 7 feet. For this reason, the two driveways were placed close together so that it didn't infringe on the properties to the north and the south. Boardmember Drew expressed concern over the narrow setback and how it would impact emergency events such as fire on adjacent property. He asked if it were possible for Los Vecinos to bring in a set of plans with a larger setback without disturbing the appearance of the front of the house. Ms. Sandy responded that they conducted a study to determine the average setbacks in the area. This plan appears to be consistent with those in the existing area. Boardmember Drew stated that there is a great deal of space at the back of the house. Ms. Sandy stated that this will be the back yard. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 5 Mr. Prescott referred to the question from Mr. Drew regarding the fire code. There is a 3 foot minimum separation distance requirement which is met by thepresented project. He stated that the City of Glendale is very supportive of infill projects of this nature. Boardmember Koehlermade.a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-21..Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Gitelson agreed that the variance meets the required standards. Boardmember Piceno agreed with Staff and would support the variance. Boardmember Koehler feels that all findings have been met. He stated that he does understand Mr. Drew's concerns and shares those concerns himself. He observed a number of properties in the area and many of them have three to five yard setbacks. He believed that development of this project will enhance the neighborhood. Therefore, he would support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he does have reservations on the setback. However, he would support the variance. Vice Chairperson Neyer felt that it is a nice infill project. She stated that the Board has approved variances similar to this one in the past and she would support it. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ZV-98-23 A variance request by John and Mary Ann Kemper to allow a zero (0) foot west side yard setback where a fifteen (15) foot perimeter setback is the minimum required in the R-2 (Mixed Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 5256 West Port au Prince Lane. Staff Contact: Elizabeth Logan(Sahuaro District). Mr. Prescott presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request does not appear to meet any of the required findings for a variance. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if the installation of concrete must consider setbacks. Mr. Jacobs replied that building setbacks are not considered for driveways. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there is a lot coverage issue with this variance request. Mr. Prescott responded that lot coverage is not a problem. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 6 John Kemper, 5256 West Port Au Prince, questioned why the zoning is R-2 when it should be R1-7 or similar single residence district. Mr. Prescott stated that all._zoning districts were updated in 1993 when Council asked that the zoning ordinance be revised so that it would be consistent with the General Plan. He stated that he does not know why it is still R-2 zoning in this area. He agreed that it should be R1-7 zoning. • However, even if it were R1-7, it would still be necessary to request this variance. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked the applicant if he could explain why he felt his request meets the four findings. Mr. Kemper stated that he realizes it is an unusual request. But, it would not be feasible to build the garage in the back yard. The space on the side of the house was originally a dog run when he purchased the house. He stated that it's just dead space and he could put it to better use as a garage. He stated that he thought Arizona garages are generally too small to begin with. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if he would be able to build one on the other side of the house. Mr. Kemper responded that there is not sufficient room on the other side of the house to build a garage. Boardmember Drew asked if the pool is permanent or above ground. • Mr. Kemper stated that it's above ground. Boardmember Drew asked what the distance is from the sidewalk to the fence. Mr. Prescott responded that it is 3 feet, which is typical. This allows City utility crews to tear up sidewalks without being on private property. Boardmember Drew stated that, in the event the garage were built, the water runoff from the fence would fall over his fence into the easement. Boardmember Koehler asked if the existing patio on the west side of the house encroaches on the setback. Mr. Prescott stated that it may be legal, non-conforming, since it was constructed before 1993 when the ordinance changed. Boardmember Gitelson asked if completion of this project would violate the fire code. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21,ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 7 Mr. Prescott stated that this would be a non-issue because the garage would be adjacent to a public street, not an adjacent structure. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve ZV-98-23. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Piceno stated that he concurred with Staff in that none of the findings are met. He stated that he is against the variance. Boardmember Koehler stated that he viewed the neighborhood which is very homogeneous. He felt the project could be a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated that he would not support the variance. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he agreed with the previous comments and could not support the variance. Boardmember Drew concurred with the Board. He stated that there are other options available to the applicant. He would not support the variance. Vice Chairperson Neyer concurred with the Board. She stated that she could not support the variance. • Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote and the MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. Mrs. Kemper commented on the decision. She stated that she and her husband spent several months on this project. She stated that they went to a lot of trouble to notify each neighbor from whom they.received full support for the project. She stated that it was disappointing to work so hard toward completion of this goal only to have it denied by the Board. She felt the process was drawn out for too long. She also stated that they spent a great deal of time and money on this project. She also stated that in the future, the applicant should be told up front that the variance request would not be passed. She told the Staff and the Board that she appreciated their time. She stated that at this point they will probably seek to move to another house. Vice Chairperson Neyer stated that the Board understands the applicants' frustrations. She stated that the Board is bound to hear the cases within the four findings of the law on which they must base their decision. She stated that there have been instances where the Board did not agree with the City. Therefore, the City can not tell an applicant that the Board is going to deny a variance, because that may not be the case. She informed the applicant that this request can be appealed to the Council. Mrs. Kemper made a reference to another project in her neighborhood which she felt was unsightly. She questioned how this property owner was able to get approval for this project. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 8 Mr. Flaaen stated that there is no guarantee that the project was approved by the City of Glendale. Boardmember Gitelson..asked__what kind_of.education program .is, in place to educate the applicants regarding the variance process. Mr. Prescott stated that the four findings are printed on the back of the variance request. These four findings are the law. The Board does not have the flexibility to approve something that does not meet the four findings. He stated that he thought the necessity of meeting the four findings was explained to the applicants. He stated that while the Citizen Participation Report may show that the neighbors support the request, it still must meet the four findings to gain approval. Boardmember Koehler stated that there is nothing in the zoning that precludes the applicant from laying a concrete slab in that area, since a slab does not constitute a building. Mr. Jacobs stated that there is no building setback in regard to concrete. However, the ordinance does regulate how much of the front yard you can devote to driveway parking. A driveway in the front yard of a single family residence can be 50% of the lot width or 30 feet, whichever is greater. Mr. Prescott stated that the applicant may pour the concrete and park their vehicle on it. Boardmember Drew informed the applicant that this decision related to the property and was not a personal one. He stated that he understands her frustration. Vice Chairperson Neyer stated that Mr. Prescott could advise the applicants if they wished to appeal the request to the City Council. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there was any Other Business. Mr. Jacobs stated that an appeal to the Planning Director's decision regarding non-conforming rights has been filed. Because it's a fairly expensive case and could include a good deal of testimony, he asked the Board to consider an Executive Session. It is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on January 14, 1998. Dinner will be provided. This is the same day of the regular BOA meeting for which we currently have no cases scheduled. The Executive Session will last approximately one to one and a half hours. Mr. Flaaen stated that we will not be discussing any of the facts of the case at the Executive Session. The procedural process of the appeal of the Planning Director's decision will be discussed. There are also some background issues of the nature of the appeal itself. This will help the Boardmembers to understand the nature of various terms. The appellant for this case will be represented by an attorney. The responsibilities of the Chairperson will also be reviewed December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 9 at this time since the procedure for an appeal is different from a variance hearing. He felt the executive session would be a good way to become familiar with the procedures of an appeal. He stated that he and Mr. Jacobs will be available to answer any procedural questions related to an appeal. Mr. Jacobs stated that this regards a request for non-conforming rights. The property had land uses prior to annexation and the request involved a determination of the legal non-conforming rights. The decision was made by the Planning Director. The applicant is appealing the decision. Some neighbors may also be present to testify on aspects of the decision made by the Planning Director. He stated that the actual appeal would be heard at a separate meeting. A special meeting for most likely on January 27 or January 28, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. should be considered. All Boardmembers present indicated that they would be able to attend the appeal on January 27, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to set an Executive Session on January 14, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to hold a special meeting on January 27 or 28, 1999. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Jacobs stated that he will also contact Chairperson Cheniae to ask if he will be able to attend the meeting on January 27, 1999. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there were any other comments from the Board. Mr. Jacobs stated that a seventh Boardmember may be appointed by December 22, 1999. Since there was no further business, Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a MOTION to adjourn. December 10, 1998 Board of Adjustment ZV-98-21, ZV-98-22,ZV-98-23 Page 10 Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. iP'a, A //if-2 Kati- Douglas,'Re- •rding Secretary