Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 11/18/1999 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-2 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 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: Robert Koehler Richard Gitelson Kathe Neyer Kenneth Sutton Daniel Drew Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson Boardmember Piceno was absent. CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney Molly Hood, City Planner Ricardo Toris, City Planner Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary 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 October 20, 1999 regular meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Chairperson Cheniae called for Business From the Floor. There were no items. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 Chairperson Cheniae asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. 1. ZV-99-23: A request by Mark Taylor, representing Mason-Harrison-Jarrard Enterprises, for a variance to allow one freestanding sign for a restaurant in a shopping center where only multi-tenant free-standing signs are allowed. The project is located in the C- 2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The property is located at 4302 West Northern Avenue (the northwest corner of 43rd Avenue and Northern Avenue). Staff Contact: Molly Hood. (Cactus District). Molly 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 findings. In response to questions from Boardmember Drew, Ms. Hood stated that the entrance from Northern Avenue is used by the rest of the shopping center. She also said that there will be a new entrance from 43rd Avenue which will also be used by the rest of the center. Boardmember Koehler stated that the intersection at 43rd Avenue and Northern is one of the busiest in the city and the proposed sign, could potentially block the view of traffic. Ms. Hood stated that there are sign requirements which must be met. She said that the sign will be set back behind the parking lot screen wall. Boardmember Koehler stated that people drive 40-60 mph on that street and the sign could create a danger to traffic. He said the Board was being asked to approve the sign without knowing its dimensions. Ms. Hood stated that this was correct but added that the City will address the safety issue. In response to a question from Boardmember Sutton, Ms. Hood stated that there is a site triangle of 40 feet by 40 feet, and the maximum height of the sign is 10 feet. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Ms. Hood stated that if the proposed sign were approved, the site would include three signs within approximately 220 feet of sign area. In response to a question from Boardmember Neyer, Ms. Hood said that if the applicant was not part of the shopping center, he could then put a sign up without the necessity for a variance. However, the applicant agreed with the City that it would be better for the center if all tenants shared the driveway. Thus, the necessity for the sign variance. Boardmember Koehler asked if the Shopping Center designation was a result of the fact that it shared common ingress and egress to which Ms. Hood replied that this was correct. She said this is a unique circumstance; it is an older shopping center even though it was never developed with a master plan. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Mark Taylor, 2425 E. Camelback Road, stated that he is an architect at Konoyer Hedrick and has worked on 45 Sonic projects. He thanked Molly for doing a fine job of presenting the project. He said his client has a great deal of concern for the issues which arose that evening. They went to a great deal of effort and expense to work with their neighbors to obtain common access rights, including working with Dick Janke, Assistant Traffic Engineer, to provide a turn lane. They pulled in the site walls to increase visibility and increase the amount of landscape on the perimeter. He said that they knew they would risk losing the right to install their own sign when they chose to pursue the common driveway but they did so in the interest of the neighbors and of traffic safety. He then showed the Board a photograph of a sign which was currently at the Sonic located at 6501 W. Glendale Avenue. In response to a question from Chairman Cheniae, Mr. Taylor said that he believed the maximum height of the sign would be 10 feet and that the sign would be placed behind the screen wall on a small berm. Responding to further questions from Chairman Cheniae, Mr. Taylor stated that the screen wall height would be 3 feet and the sign would extend 7 feet above the wall. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Mr. Taylor said that the wall would be 4 feet away from the parking to allow for landscaping. He also said they would install a "Welcome to Glendale" entry monument on Northern Avenue since it's an entrance to the City of Glendale. Chairperson Cheniae informed the Board that it was their responsibility to evaluate the sign as a variance as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, not as a traffic safety issue. The sign and its relationship to the safety of the intersection is the responsibility of a separate department of the City. Boardmember Drew stated that he looks at it as a City Ordinance that says the sign should not be there and that he must now go back and determine if the four findings are met in relationship to the variance request. Boardmember Koehler expressed concern about the size of the sign. Boardmember Sutton stated that if the sign were placed behind the wall, less of it would be visible from the street. He said that he saw the sign and determined that it's approximately seven feet high. In response to a question from Chairperson Cheniae, Mr. Taylor stated that he believed the sign would be the same size as the one in the photograph. Boardmember Neyer commented that it was not the responsibility of the Board to decide what size sign could be used but rather to decide whether they have grounds for a variance to have a sign. The City would then determine whether or not the size of the sign is appropriate. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Boardmember Koehler stated that he understood this. He added that in the past, they have attached stipulations to many variances to establish minimum standards that must be achieved in order to approve a variance. In closing, Mr. Taylor stated that they had voluntarily worked with the City and in creating a common driveway, lost the prior right to a freestanding sign. Chairperson Cheniae asked the staff for final comments and procedural guidance. Mr. Jacobs stated that they are requesting a variance because the Ordinance treats the site as a shopping center which prevents installation of additional signs. The applicant requests a freestanding sign. He said the Board was charged with deciding whether or not to grant the. variance for the sign. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-23. Boardmember Neyer made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-23. Boardmember Sutton SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer said she appreciated the comments from the other Boardmembers. She said she felt that Sonic tried to make the area safe by sharing its access. She further stated that she had faith that the City would not allow them to put in a sign that is overwhelming in size. She said that the request met the four findings and she would support the request. Boardmember Drew stated that he felt findings 3 and 4 were met. However, he said he was not sure that findings 1 and 2 were met. Boardmember Gitelson said he agreed with Boardmember Neyer. He said he didn't think the sign would be detrimental to the area and that he felt the request met the four findings. Boardmember Sutton said that the shared driveways should not eliminate their right to erect a freestanding sign and that the shared driveways improved the traffic situation. He stated that all four findings were met and that he was in favor of the variance. Boardmember Koehler said he agreed with Boardmember Drew and had reservations about whether or not findings 1, 2 and 4 were met. He noted that this problem resulted from the decision to share the driveways in an effort to minimize the traffic problem thereby causing them to lose the sign. He said he would approve the request. Chairperson Cheniae concurred with the staff report and the explanation of the findings. He stated that he also concurred with Boardwoman Neyer. He said he would support the variance request. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 2. ZV-99-24: A variance request by Whitneybell Architects on behalf of Mercy Housing Southwest to allow zero (0) square feet of private open space, patio or balcony, per dwelling unit where one-hundred (100) square feet is required in the R-4 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The property is located at the southeast corner of 65th Drive and Maryland Avenue at 6515 West Maryland Avenue. Staff contact: Ricardo Toris. (Ocotillo District). Ricardo Toris presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet all of the findings subject to two stipulations. In response to a question from Boardmember Sutton, Mr. Toris said the Zoning Ordinance, revised in 1993, includes the 100 feet of open space per unit requirement. In response to another question from Boardmember Sutton, Mr. Jacobs stated that the intent of the 100 feet of private open space is to improve the quality of multi-family developments by providing private open space for every tenant. In response to a question from Boardmember Sutton, Mr. Toris said that the parking requirements for senior housing are different from those of other multiple housing developments. Four tenths of a space per unit is required for senior housing whereas the typical multi-family parking requirement is 1 space per studio or 1 bedroom unit plus one designated guest space for every 3 units. In response to questions from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Toris said that a variance is not necessary for. parking. Mr. Toris also stated that without the variance, they would have to redesign the development. In response to a question from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Toris said that the applicant must meet the requirements set forth by HUD 202. The City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance has no specific age definition for senior housing but defines the use in the parking requirements. He also stated that the minimum age requirement for HUD 202 senior housing is 62. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Shannon Rapier, with Whitneybell Architects, introduced Jeanne Redondo, representative of Mercy Housing Southwest and C.J. Sotak, a consultant for Mercy Housing. She said that the units on the second floor are identical to the units on the first floor. She thanked Mr. Toris for his presentation and said he'd done a great job. Ms. Redondo stated that the HUD 202 is a capital advance program. The project in question will be held for low-income elderly residents for a minimum of 40 years. She said Mercy Housing has numerous properties throughout the valley, including 5 other properties that are very similar. She added that at properties such as these, the residents tend to congregate in the common area. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 In response to a question from Boardmember Sutton, Ms. Redondo said the patios on the first floor drawing, which serve as the entrance to the units, are open—not enclosed. In response to a question from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Sotak said that if Mercy Housing disposed of the property before the minimum 40 years, the property would still carry the designation of senior housing. Boardmember Gitelson referred to the 12 upstairs units and expressed concern over the quality of life those tenants would have. Mr. Sotak stated that Mercy Housing is very dedicated to providing quality housing and said their goal is to provide the most affordable housing they can with the funds available to them. The site dimensions and design requirements forced them to go to the two-story design. Otherwise, they would have to eliminate the other 12 units which would reduce the number of units available to low-income elderly citizens. Their other option would be a two-story building that is less aesthetically pleasing and less beneficial to the occupants. Ms. Rapier said that the design they proposed is a very efficient use of space. If they were to dedicate more space to the entries, the result would be less livable space. She said she did not think there was a huge difference between how the resident will live on the second floor versus how the resident on the first floor would live. Boardmember Gitelson said it was unfortunate that the second-story residents would not have private space where they could place a chair or bench.. Ms. Rapier stated that the six-foot corridor, which is designated as public, is much wider than the normal circulation path. This would allow the resident to place a chair in this area without interfering with circulation. Mercy Housing may also place potted plants in these areas to delineate their"space". Boardmember Gitelson stated that he appreciated their intent to do so, but asked Staff if the Board could stipulate that they do so. Mr. Jacobs said that if the stipulation could be defined adequately with the applicant understanding what is being requested a stipulation could be added. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he didn't see exercise facilities or a fitness center in the plans. He asked if they have made the units more livable based on what is known about the elderly and their needs. Ms. Redondo stated that there is a pull cord in the manager's unit and the manager's office.. In addition, they provide a safety seat for the bathtub. They arranges for services to be brought in to help the seniors. She stressed that this is not an assisted living facility—it is independent living. She also stated that the seniors had the option of using the community center for an exercise class if they wished to do so. She noted that a number of them walk along the grounds. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 In response to question from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Toris stated that the site has 65,000 square feet of open space, of which 42,000 is required. In response to another question from Boardmember Gitelson, Ms. Redondo said the grounds are safe to walk and the area is well lit. She said they also encourage the residents to become involved in the Block Watch program. Boardmember Gitelson said he applauded their efforts but he did not believe the seniors would "age in place". He said he was concerned with the quality of life for the seniors. In response to a question from Boardmember Koehler, Mr. Torts said the maximum density of R- 4 zoning is 20 dwelling units per acre. In response to further questions from Boardmember Koehler, Ms. Redondo stated that they acquired the property in November 1998 and they have an option on it. She said that it is the city ordinance that requires private open space and that HUD prefers that there be no private open space. Boardmember Koehler said that he found the surrounding area to be attractive, neat and beautifully cared for. Ms. Redondo said that they spent one day talking to the neighbors about the project and met with no objections. In response to questions from Chairperson Cheniae, Ms. Rapier said the interior of each unit is 537 square feet. She also said that HUD allowed 60 units and to do so, Mercy Housing had to place 12 units upstairs. She acknowledged that they could have built a project with 12 less units but the goal of Mercy Housing is to provide as much housing as possible. She said the community building has a very large covered patio and they usually provide a barbecue. The areas between the building are open space planted with grass. She stated that in regard to the variance, their goal was to enhance the second-floor public area for benefit of the residents. Mr. Sotak said that they feel each unit has 100 square feet of private open space. But, because it is not demarcated by walls as private space it is not considered to be private space. In response to a question from Chairperson Cheniae, Ms. Redondo said that the downside of building 12 less units would be that 12 elderly people in need of low-income housing would miss out. She said that most low-income elderly people in the metropolitan area pay more than 50% of their income toward housing. In response to a question from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Jacobs said that there is a minimum number of handicapped parking spaces required for this project. Mr. Flaaen added that the project will have to meet the accessibility guidelines set forth by the federal government for handicap designation. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 8 Ms. Redondo said that the project meets federal requirements. She said their research shows that many of the residents don't have vehicles; approximately 40% of the residents will have vehicles. In response to a question from Boardmember Gitelson, Mr. Toris said that because it is senior housing there is no requirement for guest parking. Boardmember Gitelson asked if there were shopping within walking distance of the project to which Ms. Redondo replied that there wasn't. She said they could call Dial-a-Ride if necessary or arrange for other transportation. Boardmember Gitelson expressed his concern regarding the effectiveness of Dial-a-Ride; he felt the residents would be extremely isolated. Boardmember Sutton asked Staff to define private open space. Mr. Toris said private open space would be considered accessible from the dwelling unit and defined by some type of physical barrier (landscape, wall, wrought iron). An applicant must designate 100 square feet per unit through patio or balcony. He said the reason the applicant is applying for a variance is because there is no physical barrier that would designate 100 square feet for each unit on the second story for those units. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-24. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-24. Boardmember Sutton SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler said he thought it was a desirable project. He thought the city zoning standards were sufficient. He said the four findings were met and he would approve the variance. Boardmember Sutton said the four findings were met. He also said that elderly, low-income housing is a plus and the project will benefit the area. Boardmember Gitelson said he applauds the idea of low-income housing for the elderly. He said it's a shame that it's being built in an area where they'll be isolated. He hoped the community center had suitable activities for them. Boardmember Drew agreed that it met the four findings. He said that because we don't know where the future residents lived before, it was possible that these accommodations may actually be an improvement in their living condition. He said he was glad to see that the City of Glendale Zoning standards were even higher than either HUD or the Federal Government expected. Boardmember Neyer concurred with the rest of the Board and said she would support the variance. November 18, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 Chairperson Cheniae felt the four findings had been met as long as the two stipulations by staff were incorporated. He said he is disappointed by the fact that they are insisting on building a project with 60 units when it means 12 of them will not have their own individual private open space. He said he does feel like they've done some things that will make it a quality place to live. He noted that the extreme shortage of low-income housing for seniors is what mostly compels him to support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Planning Staff Reports for the December 9th meeting. Mr. Jacobs said there will be two items on the agenda and both were commercial. Boardmember Neyer said she would not be in attendance at the December 9th meeting. All other Boardmembers present said they planned to attend the next meeting. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any other comments from the Board. Boardmember Sutton said that in regards to the Sonic variance, he was very concerned about the issue of traffic safety at the bus stop near the proposed sign which Sonic planned to install. Mr. Jacobs stated that the city transportation department would address that issue. Since there was no further business, Chairperson Cheniae called for a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Gitelson made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. I 01 1(4> Katie Douglas, ecording Secretary