Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 4/8/1999 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 8, 1999 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: Ron Piceno Daniel Drew Robert Koehler Kathe Neyer Richard Gitelson Boardmembers Gordon Cheniae and Kenneth Sutton were absent. CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Elizabeth Logan,Planner Thomas Sedlmeier, Senior 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. The Board identified those members who were present and absent. Mr. Jacobs,Zoning Administrator, introduced the members of staff who were present. As the first order of business, Vice Chairperson Neyer called for approval of the minutes from the March 11, 1999 meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes as written. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for Business From the Floor. There were no items. April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES 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 Boardmembers 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-99-03 A variance request by Rosario and Mercedes Esparza to allow a 40-foot front setback where 75 feet is the minimum required, 20- foot side setbacks where 50 feet is the minimum required, and 25% lot coverage where 10% is permitted in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning District. The property is located at 5234 West Tierra Buena Lane. Staff contact: Elizabeth Logan (Sahuaro District). Ms. Logan presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings 1, 2 and 4. Whether or not finding 3 was met for the lot coverage variance was debatable. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the other variances for properties requesting 25% lot coverage received approval and if they used the full 25% or if they only used a portion of it. Ms. Logan responded that previous requests did receive approval and stated that one request was for a custom home and that it did not use all of the 25% lot coverage. She stated that they used 25% lot coverage included in the SR-30 standards. Boardmember Gitelson asked if they requested the maximum lot coverage so that they could do more in the future without having to come back for another variance. Ms. Logan stated that this was the case. Boardmember Drew asked if they were requesting more lot coverage than they needed which would allow them to add on at a later date. Ms. Logan's reply was yes. Vice Chairperson Neyer called the applicant to speak. Mercedes Esparza, 5234 W. Tierra Buena, stated that she and her sister own the house. They want to expand to the west side of the home. They want to add two rooms. She stated that they hope the Board will let them do it. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he was curious why they were asking for 25%. April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Ms. Esparza stated that at this time they had no plans to go the full 25%. They only planned to go 11% for the proposed addition. Boardmember Gitelson asked if this type of request is common. He also asked if this meant they could build anywhere on the property as long as it was within the setback requirements. He stated that he was unsure what protection there would be in terms of future building on the property if the applicant didn't have to come back to the board for another variance. Mr. Jacobs stated that it meant they could build additional accessory buildings or expand the existing residence to the rear. He stated that they couldn't expand the residence in any other direction without another variance. He stated that variances of this nature have been granted in the past. Boardmember Piceno asked if the applicant would still have to go through the City to have building plans approved. Mr. Jacobs stated that they would still have to go through the basic building design review process. Boardmember Piceno asked the applicant why they were asking for the 25% lot coverage. Ms. Esparza stated that in the future they might need a shed or something of that nature. They just want to have the option to do so. Ms. Logan stated that at the time of the application, the standards selected by the applicant were within the SR-30 standards. The applicant felt 25% lot coverage would be adequate and Ms. Logan stated that she agreed with the applicant. Boardmember Drew stated that he had a problem with the request for 25% lot coverage. He stated that if the current resident were to move, the next resident would be allowed 25% coverage. He asked if the 25% could be covered anywhere. He asked if they could build as close to the property as they wish. He asked what the setback restrictions would be and how the setbacks come into effect on a piece of property once they allow 25% coverage. Mr. Jacobs stated that because the property is a,deep lot, the only direction the residence could expand would be into the rear yard. The 25% maximum would allow them to have lot coverage up to the building square footage figure based on a 32,000 square foot lot. He stated that if the lot were zoned in the district closest to its lot size, which is SR-30, it would have 25% lot coverage as the ordinance standard. He then stated that they would still have to meet all setback requirements. In her closing statement, Ms. Esparza stated that she hoped they would vote"yes". Vice Chairperson Neyer closed the public hearing on ZV-99-03. April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Boardmember Gitelson made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-03. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Drew stated that he accepted the. 25% lot coverage and that he accepted the variance as it was laid out. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he concurred with previous statements. Boardmember Piceno stated that he concurred with staff that findings 1, 2 & 4 have been met. He also felt that a significant precedent has been set by the City with respect to lot coverage variances, so he would support the application. Boardmember Koehler agreed with the rest of the Board. He felt that in changing the zoning, the City had legislated the rights away from the applicant. He felt that approval of the variance would help to rectify it. He stated that although he had some reservations on the 25% lot coverage issue,he would support it. Vice Chairperson Neyer stated that she agreed with the rest of the boardmembers. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ZV-99-01: A request by Tim Lambson representing Baptist Health Systems for multiple sign variances in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The request includes: 1. Two freestanding signs on Union Hills Drive with a separation of 100 feet where 330 feet is the minimum required separation. 2. Directional sign copy on four freestanding identification signs and three freestanding directory signs where none is permitted. 3. An increase in total wall sign area to three hundred thirty-four (334) square feet where two hundred (200) square feet is the maximum permitted per business. The property is the Arrowhead Community Hospital and Medical Center and is located at 18701 North 67th Avenue. Staff contact: Thomas Sedlmeier(Cholla District). Mr. Sedlmeier presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all four findings and if the Board decides to grant these variances, they should be subject to the following stipulation: April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 1. The existing directory and directional signs shall be removed prior to final inspection of the proposed signs. Boardmember Drew asked where the building east of 64th Avenue is. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that the applicant owns the property east of 64th Avenue and that there are no immediate plans to develop the property. He stated that they have been in discussions with medical users that wanted to develop the property. Boardmember Drew then asked about the property north of Sack Drive. Mr. Sedlmeier stated that north of Sack Drive are two modular medical office buildings. When the hospital was approved the campus did not include property north of Sack Drive or east of 64th Avenue. Boardmember Drew asked if Walgreen's was already there when the hospital was being built. Mr. Sedlmeier's response was no. Boardmember Koehler asked if there was already a type A sign there. He stated that he saw an entryway sign which was a rough-hewn adobe style sign. • Mr. Sedlmeier stated that there were currently no free-standing entry-wall signs on the property. Boardmember Koehler stated that he thought he saw a sign like it on the property. Mr. Sedlmeier held up a picture showing the types of signs which are currently on the property. Boardmember Drew asked why the City didn't provide for a situation such as this when they set the zoning up. Mr. Sedlmeier responded that the answer lies in the zoning of the property. The property is zoned C-2 and has been for years. The hospital was developed under the C-2 ordinance. The ordinance has changed since that time. The only mechanism the hospital has is the variance process. Today, hospital signage would be part of a larger process which would include a master sign package. But, in the case of older parcels that were approved under older zoning ordinances,they must use the mechanisms that are in the ordinance to expand or make changes. Boardmember Drew asked why the sign on Union Hills won't be a double-sided sign. Mr. Sedlmeier stated that the City encourages these signs on either side of the street. These signs will unify the campus. The medical office developed east of 64th Avenue could be identified on the proposed entry-wall sign. He stated that the signs are less than what would be built for retail uses. They must have directional copy because of the special nature of the use. April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 Vice Chairperson Neyer called the applicant to speak. Tim Lambson, on behalf of Baptist Health Systems at 18701 North 67th Avenue, stated that he and David Stoppenbrink have worked on this project for 8 months with Mr. Sedlmeier. He stated that they hope the request as it was presented would be accepted. He stated that the reason two signs were needed on 67th Avenue are because both 67th Avenue and Union Hills include medians with traffic going in both directions. A single-sided sign would be much more difficult to see on the split road. Vice Chairperson Neyer closed the public hearing on ZV-99-01. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-01. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler stated that it is a complex piece of property and that people who went there might be anxious to get where they're going. He visited the property and felt the existing signage is confusing. He felt that it met all four findings. Boardmember Piceno agreed with Boardmember Koehler. Signage is one of the most important things in a hospital complex. He stated that he would approve the request. Boardmember Gitelson agreed with the previous comments and with Mr. Sedlmeier. Boardmember Drew agreed with the board. Vice Chairperson Neyer concurred with the Board. She stated that she knows how frustrating it can be for a patient and families to find out where they're going. She saw a need for the signs. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice Chairperson Neyer then asked if there was any Other Business. Mr. Jacobs stated that there was none. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there were a planning staff report. Mr. Jacobs stated that there are two cases potentially scheduled for the meeting next month. He asked if any of the Boardmembers expected to be gone for the May 13, 1999 meeting. There was no indication that any of the Boardmembers present would not be in attendance at the May 13th meeting. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there were any Board Comments and Suggestions. Since there was no further business,Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a MOTION to adjourn. April 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 Boardmember Gitelson made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary