Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 3/9/2000 MEETING M MUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-2 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 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 Richard Gitelson Daniel Drew Ron Piceno Robert Koehler Gayle Laureta Chairman Cheniae was absent. Vice Chairperson Neyer welcomed Gayle Laureta, the newest member of the Board of Adjustment. CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney 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. The Board identified those members who were present and absent. Mr. Jacobs introduced members of staff. As the first order of business, Vice Chairperson Neyer called for approval of the minutes from the February 10, 2000 regular meeting. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to approve the minutes. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Neyer called for Business From the Floor. There were no items. March 9, 2000 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 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-99-30: A request by Kathy Gindt to approve a variance to reduce the required rear setback from 40 feet to 10 feet in the RR-45 (Rural Residential) zoning district on a 1.159 acre parcel. The site is located approximately 450 feet south of the southwest corner of 63rd Avenue and Greenbrier Drive (17250 North 63rd Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker(Cholla 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 findings 1, 3 and 4. Whether or not finding 2 is met is debatable. In response to staff's determination that finding 2 is debatable, Boardmember Piceno asked how the property compared with others in the area. Ms. Hacker said that the surrounding properties are roughly the same size with appropriate setbacks. In response to additional questions from Boardmember Piceno, Ms. Hacker said that one alternative available to the applicant would be to build toward the front of the property, but this would require a brand new residence. In response to questions from Boardmember Drew, Ms. Hacker said that the original intent was to use the existing building as an accessory building. She said the applicant was originally bringing an older house on to the property. The older house was damaged thereby preventing her from doing so. The applicant then remodeled the accessory building and it became a residence. The building which is now termed the accessory building was built on site in 1996 with the appropriate setbacks for an accessory building. In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Ray Jacobs stated that the setback for accessory buildings in 1996 was 11 feet. In response to questions from Boardmember Koehler, Ms. Hacker said that the actual house is the one-story building. She said that the second story would extend across to the other building. March 9, 2000 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Boardmember Laureta referred to a copy of the permit that was obtained by the applicant in 1993 at the time the accessory was converted to main residence. She asked if the City should have made note of the setback issue at that time. Mr. Jacobs said the setback should have been considered but the two permits on file did not reflect it. He said the circumstances included in the request including the conversion of the garage is unusual. Vice Chairperson Neyer referred to the lot line and the confusion surrounding it. She asked if that contributed to the confusion regarding the setback. Ms. Hacker said that the applicant did believe the property line was 25 feet or so further to the west. If it had been 25 feet further, the variance would not have been necessary. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if it would be necessary to tear down the existing buildings in the event the applicant were to choose to build elsewhere on the property. Ms. Hacker replied that the applicant could keep the existing accessory structure, and that only one main residence is allowed. Vice Chairperson Neyer called the applicant to speak. The applicant, Kathy Gindt, referred to the property to the east of Saguaro Ranch. She had rented the property and made arrangements to move the old farmhouse on the property to her current property. She had obtained a permit to do so. A foundation had been laid on her existing property in preparation for the move. Unfortunately, the farmhouse was destroyed during the moving process. She said she was able to move the garage onto her property and use it as a residence with permission from the City. In 1993, she started building the accessory building. She proposes joining the two buildings. She acknowledged that she could build elsewhere on the property, and that there was other land to build on, but the foundation would have to be removed or a residence designed to match it. In addition, a large portion of land is used for her horses. Ms. Gindt then provided a number of photographs of her property and explained the contents thereof. In response to a question from Vice Chairperson Neyer, Ms. Gindt said that the house will be "U- shaped". In response to a question from Boardmember Drew, Ms. Gindt said the small room at the back of the house is a laundry room. In response to a question from Boardmember Gitelson, Ms. Gindt said that the accessory building has been used as a guesthouse but is currently being used to store furniture. She said she would like to continue to use it as a guest area. Boardmember Gitelson asked staff if a"guest house" is a legitimate use for that building. March 9, 2000 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Mr. Jacobs said that the RR-45 zoning district does allow guest homes. Ms. Gindt said that a group of people went together and bought the property in 1979. It was divided up and deeded out in 1982. She said the full intent was that she and her neighbor would buy the adjoining acre and split it in half. But this did not occur. Instead, Mr. Border, he current neighbor, purchased the land. The public was then given an opportunity to speak. Dan Border, 17254 North 63rd Avenue, said he wished to speak only if anyone had questions. He said he lived closest to Ms. Gindt. He said he built his house so that it would be 45 feet away from her property. He said he had no strong objections to the variance request. He said he had a 6-foot block wall around the entire property except across the front where the driveway is. In closing, Ms. Gindt said she appreciated the work the City had done and she also appreciated the Board hearing her case. Mr. Jacobs said that based on the size of the lot (1.16 acres) the applicant is permitted over 10,000 square feet of building so lot coverage is not an issue. Vice Chairperson Neyer closed the public hearing on ZV-99-30. Boardmember Gitelson made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-99-30. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Drew said he had a problem with a 2-story building sitting 10 feet away from the property line. He said his concern was if the structure were demolished, a new home could be built within 10 feet of the property line. Boardmember Koehler said it was a difficult situation. He said that the residence is already within approximately 15 feet of the lot line. He noted that zoning changes precluded enhancement to the property without the approval of a variance request. He said this is probably the minimum necessary to make the property a desirable, comfortable residence. Boardmember Laureta said she was torn because she could see that the effort was made from the very beginning by the applicant to comply with code. She was troubled that there were incorrect assumptions made regarding the lot line of the property. She made note of the fact that the 2- story building already exists on the property and that this is an effort to unify the look. Boardmember Gitelson said that he agreed with Mr. Koehler. He also said that if he were the adjacent property owner, he would prefer the proposed structure to the existing one. He said he would support the variance request. March 9, 2000 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Boardmember Piceno said he agreed with staff regarding findings 1, 3 and 4. Regarding finding 2, he said he finds for the applicant because she was well intentioned throughout the endeavor. He said he would support the variance request. Vice Chairperson Neyer concurred with the other Boardmembers, Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there was any Other Business. There was none. Mr. Jacobs mentioned the Boardmember training sessions. A number of the Boardmembers had already attended a session and shared their thoughts on the class. Vice Chairperson Neyer asked if there were any Planning Staff Reports. There were none. Boardmember Gitelson stated that the Board of Adjustment has the best staff. Since there was no further business, Vice Chairperson Neyer called for a MOTION to adjourn. Vice Chairperson Neyer made a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ,) Katie P ouglas, 'ecordir: :ecretary