Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 7/8/1999 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1999 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Cheniae, with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Ron Piceno Daniel Drew Robert Koehler Kathe Neyer Kenneth Sutton Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson Boardmember Gitelson was absent. CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Katie Douglas,Recording Secretary Susan Hacker, City Planner Elizabeth Logan, City Planner Molly Hood, City Planner Chairperson Cheniae 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 introduced members of staff. As the first order of business, Chairperson Cheniae called for approval of the minutes from the June 10, 1999 regular meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes as written. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 Chairperson Cheniae called for Business From the Floor. There were no items. Chairperson Cheniae asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. Mr. Jacobs stated that there was one request for a continuance. A letter was received from the applicant requesting that case ZV-99-09 be continued until the August 12, 1999 Board of Adjustment Hearing. 1. ZV-99-09 A request by Ada Pillar, representing YCW-Triple "T" Mobile Home Park, for variances allowing a 3-foot front and rear setback where 7 feet is the minimum required; a 10-foot separation between the rear of adjacent units where 14 feet is the minimum required; and a 10-foot side separation between units where 20 feet is the minimum required at Triple "T" Mobile Home Park in the R-4 MH (Multiple Residence, Mobile Home) zoning district. The property is located at 6439 W. Myrtle Avenue. Staff contact: Elizabeth Logan(Ocotillo District). Chairperson Cheniae asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on ZV-99-09 who could not attend the next public hearing or who otherwise objected to this continuance. No one came forward to speak. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to continue ZV-99-09. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. 2. ZV-99-05 A request by Dennis Richardson, representing the Glendale Nazarene Church, to allow a 46' building height and a 75' spire height where 30' is the maximum height allowed in the R1-6 (Urban Residential) zoning district. The 26.59 acre property is located at the northwest corner of 591 Avenue and Cactus Road, 5902 W. Cactus Road. Staff Contact: Susan Hacker(Sahuaro District). Susan Hacker 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. Finding#3 also appeared to be met for the building height. Finding #3 was not met for the spire height. Boardmember Piceno asked the definition of"architecturally integrated". Mr. Jacobs responded that the spire must be part of the building and not a free-standing element. He stated that the spire cannot be relocated to another part of the site. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the spire was aesthetically attached to the building. Mr. Jacobs replied that it was. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Boardmember Neyer asked if there was a zoning change between the time of the use permit and the present. Mr. Jacobs stated the Zoning Ordinance was revised in 1993. The applicant is in the process of amending the prior use permit for the church. They must meet the current ordinance standards or receive a variance to meet the findings for the use permit. Boardmember Koehler stated that it appears that the spire is a structure and the base equals 3/4 the height of the building. He asked if the City is suggesting they drop the base by 12 feet. Ms. Hacker stated that they are asking that the top of the base be shrunk. The bottom of the base is the elevator shaft for the building. Boardmember Drew asked what the height of the cross is. Ms. Hacker replied that it is 15 feet high. Boardmember Drew asked if it is 30 feet above the roofline. Ms. Hacker responded that it is approximately 30 feet. Boardmember Sutton asked if the use permit were null and void. He asked if there were a time limit on it because it was never used. Mr. Jacobs responded that there was no time period included in the prior use permit approval. The use permit is site specific. The Church has developed a different design with different site plans which necessitates this variance. Boardmember Sutton asked if the current R1-6 zoning is the same as that in 1990. Mr. Jacobs' response was yes. Mr. Sutton asked if the spire would require lighting to alert aircraft flying overhead. Mr. Jacobs stated that he didn't believe the height at this location would require any special illumination. Boardmember Drew asked what exactly is changing. Mr. Jacobs referred to the first attachment (which was the site plan of 1990) in the staff report. It indicates a significant change in the site area the church buildings would occupy and the building locations. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Boardmember Drew asked if there would be a 6 foot fence between the Church's property and the residential area in the event the Church sold a portion of the property. Boardmember Neyer asked if there was a zoning change. Mr. Jacobs stated that the base zoning (R1-6) of the property hasn't changed. He further stated that the variance request is required for the use permit to be considered by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Cheniae stated the following to clarify the situation: The Zoning Ordinance hasn't changed. The applicant changed the plan of development and must meet the requirements and process of the current ordinance. Mr. Jacobs stated that several significant changes were made by the applicant which resulted in the need for this variance request. Dave Prescott, a planner with Earl, Curley and LaGarde, representing Pastor Dennis Richardson, with the Glendale Nazarene Church, spoke. He introduced Norm Bryer, Architect and Ken Sanders, Master Planner. He stated that in 1989 the City of Glendale went through the General Planning process during which the 30 foot height limit was established. In 1993 the Zoning Ordinance was revised which implemented the 30 foot height limitation. The property was originally a 40 acre site on which they planned to build a 75 foot high building with a 120 foot high spire. The Church decided that the proposed building and site were too large. As a result, they redesigned their plans for the property. They intend to sell off 8 —9 acres to be used as a single family subdivision. The new site plan reduces the property to be approximately 30 acres. The principal building will be set back a significant distance from any existing houses. The spire will be constructed at the perimeter of the Church. The old plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 1990. The new building is only 46 feet high with a spire height of 75 feet. It will be a multi-use facility with uses including Chapel,banquets, gymnasium, meeting rooms, summer bible program, etc. Mr. Prescott stated that the spire is physically attached to the building because the base of the spire doubles as the elevator shaft. The base of the spire actually conceals the elevator shaft. He further stated that the spire won't be highly visible because other buildings will be between the spire and the edge of the road. He also mentioned that a neighborhood meeting was held and there were no objections to the proposed changes. Boardmember Drew asked what the distance would be to the nearest residential area if the Church sold a portion of the land. Mr. Prescott replied that the distance would be 160 feet. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Boardmember Sutton asked how much space is needed above the elevator to conceal the elevator. Mr. Prescott responded that approximately 6 feet is needed. Boardmember Sutton asked if it would be possible to lower the spire 13 feet. Mr. Prescott responded that it is possible,but the result would not be architecturally pleasing. Boardmember Piceno referred to the term "architectural integration" and asked if the owner would have any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Prescott stated that he and his client agreed with the stipulation that the spire be architecturally integrated. Boardmember Neyer made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-05 subject to stipulations. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler stated that he had conflicting feelings. He understood why a large building needs a high ceiling. However, he does not like to see zoning laws violated. This would not contribute to the homogeneity of the area. He stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Sutton stated that he would support the variance because they are reducing the height. It was his opinion that the church would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Boardmember Piceno stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he was concerned about the distance of 175 feet from potential residences but would support the variance. Boardmember Neyer stated that they did a good job of replanning the site and integrating the spire with the elevator shaft. She stated that she would support the variance with the stipulations. Chairperson Cheniae concurred that the applicant has enhanced the design. He would support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ZV-99-07 A request by Larry and Balinda Lawrence to allow a maximum wall height of 6 feet where 3 feet is the maximum height allowed in the R1-6 PRD (Urban Residential, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. The property is July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 located at 19375 N. 54th Avenue. Staff Contact: Elizabeth Logan (Cholla District). Elizabeth 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 and #3. Whether #2 is met is debatable. Finding #4 is not met as proposed. It could be met if a 30' view triangle at the intersection of 54th Avenue and Kerry is provided, and the 54th Avenue streetscape is landscaped along the length of the wall. Ms. Logan then introduced Andrew Smigielski, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of Glendale. Boardmember Drew asked if Kerry Lane or 54th Avenue would have been along the front yard when the property was R1-6. Mr. Logan replied that Kerry Lane was not in existence at that time. Boardmember Drew referred to where the builder built the fence. He stated that it looks like a problem due to the design of the fence. Mr. Smigielski stated that the City recognizes that there may be problems in addition to the 30 foot triangle. However, the provision of 30 foot triangle will improve what happens at that intersection. It will help drivers. Boardmember Neyer referred to the letter that was mailed by the Traffic Department to the applicant. She asked if the City just acts on the matter when there is no response from the applicant. Mr. Smigielski stated that they did send the letter and are trying to rectify the situation. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were another course of action to pursue other than installing a 3-way stop sign. Mr. Flaaen stated that the options available to the City after trying to contact the homeowner and request voluntary compliance is to seek an injunction or court order to remove that portion of the fence. The Traffic Department action was appropriate. It may not be the preferred method of dealing with the situation but there is the anticipation that people will stop at the traffic sign. The City may seek recourse through the courts. He stated that it was hoped that through the variance a resolution could be reached thereby avoiding a court case. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he believed the intersection is dangerous. He visited with neighbors at the site and was informed that people often run the stop sign at that intersection. He asked if the City was aware that the builder was going to build this wall along the property. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 Ms. Logan responded that a member of the City's planning department did work on this project but was not made aware of the fact that this wall would be built. Boardmember Drew asked if the two lots were tied and what the zoning was for each lot. Ms. Logan responded that one parcel was zoned R1-6 and the other was A-1. Boardmember Drew asked if the zoning would change after the parcels were tied. Ms. Logan responded that the zoning would remain the same. Boardmember Drew asked if the cable box and power box would go in the front or back yard. Ms. Logan responded that it was part of the City right-of-way and would remain in the front yard. Boardmember Sutton asked what the setback along Kerry Lane is. Ms. Logan responded that it is 5 feet. However, a 6' wall can be built on the property line. Boardmember Koehler expressed concern about the intersection at 54th & Utopia. He stated that it's the same situation as the one in this case. Mr. Smigielski stated that he would observe this and send a letter to the property owner if necessary. He stated that 6 foot high fences are often built without the knowledge of the City's Traffic Engineers. Boardmember Neyer expressed concern that any landscaping near the intersection could become overgrown and cause an obstruction of view in the future. Ms. Logan stated that the review process could include plants and materials to prevent that from happening. Boardmember Drew felt that it was a bad street design. He wondered if drivers would see the stop sign. Mr. Smigielski stated that they had put up a "Stop Sign Ahead" sign to warn drivers of the stop sign at the intersection. Boardmember Sutton asked if Traffic Engineering works with Community Development on various plans. Mr. Smigielski stated that they normally do not. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 8 Mr. Jacobs stated that the City's landscaping architect is aware of the visibility guidelines. Often problems arise when plants or shrubs become overgrown or other plants are added. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Larry Lawrence, 19375 North 54th Avenue, stated that he did make contact with the City. He said that Dave Sabers, Assistant Traffic Engineer, City of Glendale, left a business card on his door. Mr. Lawrence stated that he called Mr. Sabers but got no response. He referred to the corner at 54"' & Utopia and stated that they also are in violation. He further stated that the visibility easement does not apply. Mr. Flaaen stated that he met with Mr. Lawrence. He stated that the term "easement" is in inappropriate because it gives individuals the impression that there is a recorded easement somewhere. It is not actually an easement. In 1963, The City of Glendale Council adopted a fence ordinance. It states that where two streets intersect, a 30 foot site triangle must be established. No obstructions above 30 inches are permitted. The site triangle rule does apply in this situation. Chairperson Cheniae stated that it should be interpreted as a setback as opposed to an easement where right-of-ways are involved. Mr. Flaaen stated that it is a right-of-way,not an easement. It is not an ownership interest. Boardmember Drew asked if the fence line should stop to give an unobstructed view. Mr. Flaaen stated that this is correct. If two streets intersect, the fence line must be such that it allows for a 30 foot site triangle. Mr. Lawrence stated that there are many violations throughout the City. Chairperson Cheniae asked Mr. Lawrence to focus on the four criteria. He informed Mr. Lawrence that he may pursue the legal issue with the City but the Board does not have the authority to deal with it. Mr. Lawrence stated that the property was zoned A-1 prior to the land exchange with Marlor. An agreement was made to trade like pieces of property. There was no indication that the land would be rezoned to R1-6. He stated that it was the City's responsibility to deal with it during the planning process. He stated that special conditions do apply since it's a large property with a unique shape and the zoning has since changed to R1-6 PRD. There is a house on 59th Avenue between Desert Cove and Mercer, which has a similar situation. He stated that adding square footage to the front yard would be a hardship. Building a 3 foot high fence was an option but he did not care for it. The R1-6 zoning was news to him. He met with Marlor and the City. The City staff assured him that they were aware of the site and the details were being discussed. He stated that the City never suggested a reasonable solution. He suggested that the City maintain July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 the 30-foot site triangle. His problem is with maintaining the corner. He does not want to have to maintain it. Mr. Lawrence showed a diagram to the Board and felt that it showed that moving the fence back would result in only a negligible difference regarding the visibility at the intersection. Chairperson Cheniae asked Mr. Lawrence if he negotiated the fence with the Developer and if it was his decision to have the fence built there. Mr. Lawrence replied that it was his decision and it was built on the property line. Boardmember Drew asked if the portion of property deeded to him was classified as a residential lot and could be built on. Mr. Lawrence replied that it could. Boardmember Drew asked if he should treat it as 1 piece of property or two. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he views it as two differently zoned pieces of property by Larry Lawrence. If tied, the zoning remains. He asked what the tie will do. Mr. Jacobs responded that this variance request relates to the existing house and existing front yard with the parcels combined. Boardmember Drew stated that he will treat it as one piece of property with two zones. He asked if the applicant could build on the property at a later date. Mr. Flaaen stated that the 2 separate lots are being tied together. The variance is still tied specifically to the house. Mr. Lawrence could divide the parcel and build a house facing Kerry Lane. Part of the back yard could have a 6 foot high fence. If the variance were granted and the property were subdivided in the future the variance would no longer apply. Boardmember Sutton asked if there were a setback for the fence on the side yard. Ms. Logan replied that there was none. Boardmember Sutton asked why the maintenance of the 30-foot site triangle is the property owner's responsibility. Mr. Jacobs responded that the 30-foot site triangle is on private property. Mr. Lawrence stated that 2 1/2 feet is designated right-of-way. It is the responsibility of the subdivision to landscape and maintain the right-of-way. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 10 Mr. Flaaen stated that the right-of-way maintenance only applies when it's directly adjacent to the subdivision. He stated that the area along Kerry Lane is not the proposed stipulation that this property owner be required to landscape and maintain. He stated that the right-of-way on the North side of Kerry Lane is not directly adjacent, or continuous, to the subdivision. Therefore, it is not required to be landscaped. Chairperson Cheniae asked who is responsible for landscaping the 2 1/2 feet along Kerry Lane. Mr. Flaaen replied that no one is. If the property owner landscapes it, the property owner is responsible for maintaining it. Otherwise,the property owner would only be required to keep the weeds down. The property owner is not obligated to landscape the 18 feet in question. Boardmember Piceno asked if stipulation #3 requires something more than the actual legal requirement. He then asked Mr. Lawrence if he could live with the stipulations of the variance. Mr. Lawrence stated that he did not agree with stipulations#2 and#3. Boardmember Neyer asked Mr. Lawrence what type of fence he would prefer to build. Mr. Lawrence replied that they would build something that is in conformance with the fence on 54th Avenue. They would prefer to build a stucco fence. Chairperson Cheniae asked Mr. Lawrence if, in regards to stipulation #2, he would have no problem with a stucco fence. Mr. Lawrence stated that they do not have a problem with stucco. They would probably match it to their house. Boardmember Drew asked what problem Mr. Lawrence has with stipulation#3. Mr. Lawrence replied that the 2 1/2 foot right of way is the responsibility of the subdivision. He also stated that the code exempts single family homeowners. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Lawrence if he was part of the subdivision and if he made a stipulation that he not be a part of the subdivision. Mr. Lawrence stated that he had requested that he not be a part of the subdivision. Ms. Logan stated that she believed stipulation #3 was added because citizens at the Citizen Participation meeting expressed concern about the landscaping. Landscaping would reduce the impact of the 6 foot wall. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 11 Boardmember Neyer asked Mr. Smigielski if anything less than 18 feet would still provide for the 30 foot site triangle. He replied that they require 30 feet, nothing less. He stated that if they could get more than that, it would be better. The public was then given the opportunity to speak. Craig Micek, 5405 West Kerry Lane, stated that his concern is with the appearance. He stated that landscaping is the main concern of the homeowners. Judy Chepeus, 19262 North 54th Avenue, stated that the 30 foot site triangle is very important, especially when the safety of small children is taken into consideration. She felt that ground cover would improve the appearance as long as it doesn't obstruct the view of the drivers. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Chepeus what her feelings were regarding the 6 foot fence. Ms. Chepeus stated that she has no problem with the 6 foot fence as long as vision is not obstructed. Dr. Dorothy Showers, 5807 West Del Lago Circle, stated that she felt the process was not fair to the applicant. Boardmember Sutton asked Mr. Lawrence when the land was exchanged. Mr. Lawrence stated that it was exchanged in May 1998. Boardmember asked Mr. Smigielski if the 30 foot site triangle made a difference. Mr. Smigielski stated that every foot counts. Each additional foot of visibility tremendously increases the driver's chances of seeing a child or another vehicle. Mr. Flaaen informed the Board that the site triangle is still a requirement of the City Code regardless of whether or not the Board approves the stipulation. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV 99-07. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-07 with the three stipulations. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer stated that she would not support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he would not support the variance. The problems are not self- imposed by the property owner. He stated that it does create a traffic problem but he felt the 30 July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 12 foot site triangle improved the situation. He stated that the fence shouldn't have to match the builder's fence. Boardmember Piceno stated that the City is trying to come to a reasonable accommodation for the applicant and he would support the variance. Boardmember Sutton stated that the findings were not met and he would not support the variance for the fence. Boardmember Koehler stated that he was concerned with pedestrians at the intersection. He felt that 1 or 2 seconds more could make a difference. He stated that maybe the entire parcel should be rezoned to A-1. He believed the 30-foot site triangle should be enforced. He felt that all four findings had been met. He would support the motion. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he would support the motion with the exception of stipulation #3. Because he could not impose stipulation #3 on the applicant, he would not support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the Motion was DENIED by a vote of 4 to 2 with Boardmembers Neyer,Drew, Sutton and Cheniae voting Nay. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-07, with stipulation #1, deleting stipulations #2 and #3 and adding a new stipulation stating that the variance only applies to the house at 19375 North 54th Avenue and shall not apply if a residential building is constructed on the R1-6 parcel. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer stated that she would not support the variance. Boardmember Koehler stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Sutton stated that he would not support the variance. Boardmember Piceno stated that he would not support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he would support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he would approve the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 3,with Boardmembers Neyer, Sutton and Piceno voting Nay. Mr. Flaaen informed the applicant that he has appeal rights both to the Superior Court or to the City Council. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 13 Chairperson Cheniae called for a break at 10:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:15 p.m. 4. ZV-99-08: A variance request by Thomas Himes to allow 18% lot coverage where 10% is permitted in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 5218 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 all four findings. Boardmember Neyer asked if the proposed structure met the setbacks. Ms. Logan responded that it did. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Thomas Himes, 5218 West Tierra Buena Lane, stated that the staff report pretty well summarized the situation. Therefore,he would not make a presentation but would take questions. Boardmember Drew asked the applicant what his intent was for the building. He asked if the applicant planned to run a business from it. Mr. Himes stated that he did not. He would use it for storage of automobiles, RV, a boat, etc. Boardmember Sutton asked if it would be single story. Mr. Himes stated that it would. Boardmember Neyer asked how he would enter the garage. Mr. Himes stated that he would access it through the alley and use the gate in the back of the property. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-08. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-08. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer stated that this was another variance that was needed because the zoning is wrong and stated that she would support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he would support the variance. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 14 Boardmember Koehler stated that he agreed with previous comments and if residents would support a change from agricultural zoning to SR-30, then these issues would be resolved. He would support the variance. Boardmember Sutton stated that he would support the variance. He had no problem with a storage facility. Boardmember Piceno stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Cheniae stated that he would support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. ZV-99-02: A request by Ming Chen,representing New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., to allow a 20' rear yard setback where 60' is the minimum required in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The 0.64 acre property is located in the Glendale Galleria shopping center at 5710 W. Peoria Avenue. Staff Contact: Molly Hood (Sahuaro District). Ms. Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all of the required findings. Boardmember Sutton asked if there were another area for excess parking besides 57`h Avenue. Ms. Hood replied that the property is a pad in the Glendale Galleria Shopping Center. She stated that there is extra parking in the shopping center that can serve the proposed development. Boardmember Piceno asked if spa members might try to park in the spaces of the proposed building. Ms. Hood stated that it is a possibility because in shopping centers parking spaces are rarely designated to each use. However, it would be an enforcement issue with the property manager of the center. The offices would use the parking spaces primarily from during regular business hours. After 5:00 p.m.,parking would not be an issue. Boardmember Piceno asked if the area behind the spa is a utility driveway. Ms. Hood stated that it is used to access parking and for service deliveries. Boardmember Drew asked if any of the other buildings in the shopping center had 20 foot setbacks. He stated that to the best of his knowledge, the other buildings in the center had setbacks of at least 50 feet or more. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 15 Ms. Hood stated that this is correct. Mr. Drew asked where the water retention area would be moved. Ms. Hood stated that the area in question was not designated for water retention. The center has made other provisions for water retention. Mr. Drew stated that he is a member of Bally's. He also asked how the residential area would be impacted if the space were used for retail as opposed to office space. Ms. Hood stated that land use is established by existing zoning. Potential uses are both office and retail. The request at hand is whether the 20 foot building setback is appropriate at this location. Boardmember Sutton asked if the property could be utilized if the variance were not granted. Ms. Hood stated that the property could still be used,but it would likely have to be designed with the parking adjacent to the north property line and the building towards the south. Also, in order to achieve the same square footage as currently proposed, the building would have to be two stories. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Ming Chen, 8940 North 19th Avenue, representing the shopping center owner, stated that the hardship was not self-imposed. He stated that it was a result of the Zoning Ordinance revision. The Galleria has been there for 10 years. It was zoned C-2 and had 20 foot setbacks. However, the new ordinance now affects this pad. He stated that the shopping center already complies with the City requirement for water retention. He stated that they do not want to use the space for retail. The shopping center already has more retail than needed. Boardmember Drew stated that his concern was that they would build retail. He would have no problem with offices. The public was then given an opportunity to speak. William Grewell, 10838 North 57th Drive, stated that he lived right behind the proposed building. He stated that a number of people drive down his street and make U-turns. He stated that the whole center parking lot is packed with cars and it is busy at all hours. Traffic is his main concern. Boardmember Drew informed Mr. Grewell that the applicant could still build on that space even if the variance were not approved. Mr. Grewell stated that the area is too congested, and the fewer cars the better. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 16 Oscar Castaneda, 10832 North 57th Drive, stated that he has resided there for over 10 years. The opening of 57th Drive created huge traffic problems for the residential area. He stated that he was not objecting to the building, but he did object to the 20 foot setback. Traffic was his main concern. Martin Ogden, 10890 North 57th Avenue, stated that traffic was also his main concern. There have been several near collisions in that area. The traffic is horrible. Mr. Chen thanked the three gentlemen for their comments. He stated that the increase in traffic was a result of the development which took place in that 5 mile radius. Today's issue is a setback of 20 feet versus a setback of 60 feet. They could have built on this space 9 years ago and the setback would not have been an issue. Boardmember Neyer asked how the building would be designed. Mr. Chen stated that they would construct a building shell. Then divide it up later depending on the tenants. Boardmember Neyer asked if it would be leased to one large tenant. Mr. Chen stated that it may accommodate 2—3 tenants. Boardmember Neyer asked if it would be used for retail. Mr. Chen replied that it would not. Chairperson Cheniae asked what the setback was at the time of purchase. Mr. Chen responded that it was 20 feet. Boardmember Sutton asked which pad was the last developed at the shopping center. Mr. Chen replied that it was Applebee's. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-02. Boardmember Neyer made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-02. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler stated that this was a difficult decision. The two parties were diametrically opposed. The owner wouldn't leave it unimproved regardless of the variance. He stated that he would support the variance. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 17 Boardmember Sutton stated that he would support the variance. Boardmember Piceno stated that he agreed with Mr. Koehler and Mr. Sutton. He said it was a traffic issue. He stated that it was a tough decision and that the lesser of two evils is granting the variance. He would support the variance. Boardmember Drew stated that he would abstain from voting since he knew Oscar Castaneda. Boardmember Neyer stated that she agreed with the Board. Traffic is a separate issue. She would support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he agreed with Ms. Neyer. He would support the variance with the stipulation that 21 feet be the maximum height allowable. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the Motion Passed 5-0, with Boardmember Drew abstaining from the vote. Mr. Flaaen informed the members of the public who spoke at the hearing that they do have a right of appeal. Mr. Ogden voiced his displeasure with the Board's decision and made innuendoes about the lack of integrity of the members of the Board. Boardmember Koehler responded by saying that denigrating the members of public service on the Board is not appropriate and very much unwelcome. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Other Business. Mr. Jacobs stated there will be several cases at the next hearing. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Planning Staff Reports. Mr. Jacobs stated that there were none. Chairperson Cheniae asked if he could make a comment on what happened. He stated that the Board can't get into arguments with citizens. He stated that the best thing to do is to walk away from it and not take it personally. He felt nothing could be accomplished by getting into a debate with them. Boardmember Koehler stated that when the integrity of the Board was assaulted at a public hearing,he felt it necessary to respond since it's a matter of public record. Mr. Jacobs stated that the November Board of Adjustment Hearing has been rescheduled to Thursday,November 18, 1999, due to a Holiday. July 8, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 18 Since there was no further business, Chairperson Cheniae called for a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Kati Dougl s, Recording Secretary