Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 12/9/1999 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GT.FNDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 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 Ron Piceno Kenneth Sutton Daniel Drew Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson Boardmembers Neyer and Gitelson were absent. CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Sedlmeier, Senior Planner Susan Hacker, 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 November 18, 1999 regular meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes. Boardmember Sutton SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Chairperson Cheniae called for Business From the Floor. There were no items. December 9, 1999 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 2 • Chairperson Cheniae asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Cheniae stated that the purpose of a public hearing is to provide interested parties the opportunity to present testimony for the Board's consideration. An affirmative vote of four Board members is required to pass a motion. Chairperson Cheniae then explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Cheniae called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ZV-99-11: A request by Dan Olson to approve a variance to reduce the required side setback from .15 feet to 0 feet in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The site is a .51 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of 74th Avenue and Carole Lane (7591 N. 74th Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo 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 all of the findings. In response to questions from Chairperson Cheniae, Ms. Hacker said that she received one phone call in opposition to the variance request. The caller felt that removing the setback would detract from the neighborhood. Ms. Hacker said she believed the caller was from Thomas Electric, which is an adjacent property owner to the north of the subject property. She stated that Thomas Electric also has a zero setback but she did not know when the building was constructed. In response to questions from Boardmember Drew, Mr. Jacobs said that if there were additional requirements with the building code as a result of the reduced setback, they would be handled during construction and were not an issue for the Board. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Dan Olson, 7591 North 74th Avenue, said he was unaware of Thomas Electric's opposition to the variance request. He said they seemed supportive when he spoke with them. He said the buildings would not be matched up exactly and would not share a common wall. He further stated that this business is anxious to come to the City of Glendale. In response to a question from Boardmember Koehler, Mr. Olson stated they rent water towers and water trucks. He said that customers normally don't come to their location because the equipment is delivered to the customer. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-11. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-11. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler said that the merits were well put by the presenter and that all four findings were met. He said he would support the variance request. December 9, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Boardmember Sutton said that all four findings had been met. He said he would support the variance request. Boardmember Piceno stated that he was in favor of the request and said that all findings were met. He said he would approve the request. Boardmember Drew concurred with the Board. Chairperson Cheniae also concurred that the findings had been met. He said he would support the request. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ZV-99-22: A request by Ming Chen for Tony Tran for multiple landscape variances in the C- 2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The request includes: 1. A reduction in the required net site landscaping area from 20% to 13%. 2. A landscape buffer of 0-feet where 15-feet is required. The .28-acre property is located at the southwest corner of 51St Avenue and Ocotillo Road at 5103 West Ocotillo Road. Staff contact: Thomas Sedlmeier (Ocotillo District). Thomas Sedlmeier presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings 1 and 2, but it did not meet finding 3. Whether or not finding 4 is met is debatable. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Mr. Sedlmeier stated that the applicant's original request included consideration of the block wall but the wall will be considered in the Conditional Use process. In response to questions from Chairperson Cheniae, Mr. Sedlmeier said that if the concrete slab were removed and the area landscaped, the need for the second variance request would be eliminated. However, the first variance would remain. He stated that while he discussed the removal of the concrete slab with the applicant, the applicant Opted not to do so because of the cost. In response to a question from Boardmember Sutton, Mr. Sedlmeier said that the wall height had not yet been settled. Mr. Sutton stated that in his opinion, the five-foot wall would not be a suitable buffer between the shop and the neighboring apartment complex. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. December 9, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Ming Chen, 8940 North 19th Avenue, #100, stated that they received no opposition to this variance request. He said that previously the auto repair shop had operated for twenty years and he assumed that it was compatible with the neighborhood. He said his client, who bought the property last year, wants to improve the lot with substantial capital investments. He said the Zoning Ordinance imposes a hardship on this site. • Chairperson Cheniae informed the applicant that the Board is obligated to ensure that all four findings are met. The lack of opposition to the variance request does not override the fact that all four findings must be met. He asked if the applicant assessed the cost of removal of the concrete slab and landscaping that portion of the site which would eliminate one of the two variances. Mr. Chen stated that the cost would be between $5,000.00 and$7,000.00. • Chairperson Cheniae asked if the applicant would be willing to consider doing this which would give the applicant a better opportunity at meeting the findings and increasing their chance of receiving approval for the variance request. Mr. Chen stated that the applicant is a small partnership trying to open their first business and they have a limited budget. Chairperson asked if there is a willingness on the applicant's part to amend the proposal or if they preferred to leave it as is. Mr. Chen stated that they chose to leave it as is. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Mr. Chen stated that the distance from the west wall of the building to the main door is approximately 12 feet. Mr. Sedlmeier stated that there are a couple of issues that aren't too clearly shown on the plan that merit the Board's consideration. The applicant proposes to replace the existing chain link fence with masonry screen walls on three sides of the site. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-99-22. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-22. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Drew stated that regarding finding 3, installation of an 8-foot landscape point, he didn't feel it would gain anything. He assumed that the Code Enforcement would deal with this issue. He said he viewed#3 as a gray area and would support the variance request. Boardmember Piceno agreed with the applicant in that it would enhance the neighborhood. He stated that the inflexibility of the applicant to meet finding 3 puts him in an inflexible position. He said that because the findings 3 and 4 were not meet, he could not approve the variance request. December 9, 1999 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Boardmember Sutton said he didn't feel that finding 3 had been met. He said it could be eliminated by adding an 8 foot white buffer. He also felt that finding 4 had not been met. He felt that the noise generated by the shop will create a problem with the neighboring apartment complex if no buffers are in place to reduce the noise. Boardmember Koehler said that his problem is that the property exists and the building was built 25 years ago. The shop was in operation for approximately 21 years. Now, the revised Zoning Ordinance prevents operation of the same type of business. He agreed that findings 3 and 4 were not met but had reservations about it because the business was in place before the Zoning Ordinance revision. Chairperson Cheniae also expressed concern that this is a property that was in existence for many years and that the City was asking for modifications after 20 years. However, he also mentioned concern for the adjacent apartment complex. He said he perceived some inflexibility on the part of the applicant. He said he did not feel that findings 3 or 4 were met and therefore could not support the variance. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION was DENIED by a vote of 4-1 with Boardmembers Piceno, Koehler, Sutton and Cheniae voting Nay. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Planning Staff Reports for the January 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Jacobs said there will be one item on the agenda. He said he may be unable to attend due to the need to attend a planning commission meeting that evening. All Boardmembers present indicated that they planned to be in attendance for the January 13, 2000 meeting. 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 7:45 p.m. Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary