Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 8/10/2000 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2000 8:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 8:00 p.m. by the Chairperson, Ron Piceno, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Drew Gayle Laureta Ann Ransom Ron Piceno, Chairperson Robert Koehler BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Gitelson Gordon Cheniae, Vice Chairperson CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Susan Hacker, Planner Charles Beck, Associated Planner Linda Graham, Recording Secretary Jim Flenner, Assistant City Attorney The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the July 13, 2000 meeting. The minutes were approved as written. Chairperson Piceno called for business from the floor. There was none. Chairperson Piceno asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Piceno stated that the Board is required to hold a public hearing before making a decision on a variance or appeal request. He explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony for the Board's consideration. He then explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Piceno called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-06 REQUEST: A request by Abe Garcia to allow a patio cover to encroach 6.5 feet into a 10-foot side yard setback in an SR-12 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. The property is located at the corner of Monte Lindo and 69th Avenue (6905 W. Monte Lindo). Staff contact: Charles Beck (Cholla District). Continued from the July 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that the request does not meet any of the four required findings. Boardmember Koehler asked if the existing lattice is legal or not. Mr. Beck stated that the Applicant did not go through the permit process. Ms. Viola Garcia, 6905 West Monte Lindo, stated that the patio already existed when they first purchased the property in April 1998. She explained that they erected a temporary redwood trellis, which acts as an arbor over their barbecue to provide shade. She said that they sent letters to eight neighbors and received positive responses from those neighbors. She passed around pictures showing the lattice as it was built. She reiterated that the patio was preexisting and stated that they did not get a permit because they did not believe they needed one for a temporary structure. Chairperson Piceno asked Ms. Garcia when they erected the lattice. Ms. Garcia stated that they built it between eight months and one year ago. She noted that the structure is freestanding. Boardmember Laureta asked about the height of the structure. Ms. Garcia estimated it to be eight feet in height. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Garcia when they were contacted by the City and why they did not originally contact the City themselves. Ms. Garcia stated that a building inspector contacted them November 3, 1999. She explained that they did not contact the City because they did not believe a permit was necessary since it was a freestanding arbor. Chairperson Piceno asked if there were any other questions from the Board to the applicant. Mr. Keith McDonald, 7152 West Plaucida Lane, President of the Board of Directors, Patrick Ranch Home Owners Association, stated that the Home Owners Association has no official position. He explained that this issue is still going through their standard approval process. He suggested, however, that their position should not affect the outcome of a request for a municipal variance. Chairperson Piceno asked if the Home Owners Association would have a problem if the Board found for the applicant. Mr. McDonald stated that, even if something is approved for zoning, they can forbid it within the Association. He explained that the City's position, unless they deny the request, would have no effect on the Association's decision. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 3 Boardmember Ransom asked if the CC&R's take precedent if they are more restrictive. It was explained that the CC&R's can be more restrictive as long as they do not conflict with zoning. Boardmember Laureta asked if the Applicant submitted an application to the Home Owners Association for approval. Mr. McDonald stated that he did not know if they had or not. He said that the Management Company told him they had discussed this issue with the Applicant and that the Applicant was in the process of submitting a request for architectural approval. Ms. Florence Hunt, 6663 West Firebird, stated that the structure is barely visible, noting that only two neighbors can see it. Ms. Cathy Burnett, 23327 North 69th Avenue, stated that what she can see of the structure is beautiful and professionally done. She stated that the Applicants have done several home improvements, all of which have been wonderful. Mr. John Lombardo, 6902 West Monte Lindo, expressed his opinion that the structure has been a very attractive addition to the house, noting that it is not very visible from the street. In regards to Finding 3, he stated that the trellis would not be functional if they were to move it. Boardmember Drew asked how it would look if the structure were shortened three to three and one-half feet. Mr. Lombardo sated that it currently blends in well and expressed his opinion that shortening it would lessen its functionality. Mr. Robert Boswell, 6911 West Monte Lindo, voice his support of the request, stating that the trellis has been a great addition. Ms. Pam Cannon, 6920 West Monte Lindo, stated that the structure is barely visible, but is beautiful from the Garcia's backyard. She said that the Garcia's have been great neighbors and have done a lot for the neighborhood. Ms. Garcia stated that shortening the trellis would make it non-functional, explaining that it would no longer cover the barbecue grill. Chairperson Piceno asked if the barbecue grill was installed prior to their purchasing the house. Ms. Garcia confirmed that the barbecue was already there. Mr. Jacobs explained that the City provides a process for review and construction of accessory buildings. Boardmember Drew asked if the patio and barbecue all fall within the zoning rules and regulations. Mr. Jacobs stated that a cement slab does not require building setbacks. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-06. Chairperson Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 4 Ms. Laureta expressed her opinion that, while the structure is attractive, the City code was not followed and it is in violation of the setback. She suggested that three of the four criteria were not met and the beauty of the structure is not relevant to the Board's decision. Boardmember Ransom stated that she drove to the neighborhood and saw the trellis and stated that it is noticeable from the street. She expressed her opinion that it does not meet any of the four findings. Boardmember Drew made no comment. Boardmember Koehler agreed that, while the structure was well constructed, it does not meet any of the four criteria. Chairperson Piceno agreed with comments made by the other Board members. He said the support voiced by the Garcia's neighbors is admirable, however, the rules, regulations and ordinance bind the Board. He said that at least three of the findings have not been met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-08 REQUEST: A request by Diane Schwarz to approve a variance to allow a front yard wall 4.5 ft. in height where 3 feet is the maximum allowed in R1-6 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. The project is located within Thunderbird Palms Unit Four Subdivision on the southeast corner of Eugie and 56th Avenue, at 5549 West Eugie Avenue. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Sahuaro District). Continued from the July 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He expressed staff's opinion that the request meets Findings 1, 3 and 4, however, it is debatable whether it meets Finding 2. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Beck where the 30-foot wall would begin and end. Mr. Beck explained that it has to be outside of the line of site triangle of 56th Avenue. Ms. Diane Schwarz, Applicant, stated that the three-foot height would not do what they are wanting, explaining that they are wanting to have an outdoor patio. Chairperson Piceno asked if 4.5 feet would be high enough to shield them from the glare of headlights. Ms. Schwartz explained that it would help more in mitigating noise and the view. Boardmember Ransom asked how the wall would connect with the existing wall. Ms. Schwarz explained that the wall would not be attached to anything. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 5 No requests to address the Board on this case were submitted. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to ACCEPT ZV-00-08 as written, with the stipulation that it be no longer than 30 feet from end to end as shown on site plan dated May 5,2000. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened thefloor to discussion Boardmember Koehler stated that he could see where the wall would benefit the owner as there is a lot of traffic in the area. Boardmember Drew agreed with Boardmember Koehler. Boardmember Ransom stated that she has reservations about approving a four-foot wall for fear that Glendale could begin to look as though the front yards are locked in. She noted, however, that three of the four findings are met. Chairperson Piceno agreed with staff that Findings 1, 3 and 4 have been met. He stated that Finding 2, while debatable, is peculiar to this property. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-07 REQUEST: A request by Dave Bowman to approve a variance to reduce the side setback to 27 feet where 40 feet is required and increase lot coverage to 15% where 10% is maximum allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 5437 West Tierra Buena Lane. Staff Contact: Charles Beck(Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated that the request meets all four findings. Boardmember Drew asked if the storage room would be 24' x 20'. Mr. Beck stated that several variations have been discussed throughout the process. Mr. Jacobs stated that, according to the site plan, the storage area would be 16'6" x 20'. Boardmember Koehler asked if the 24' x 24' storage building already exists. Mr. Beck stated that the storage shed does currently exist. Mr. Koehler asked if the storage building shown as 16'6" is already under construction. Mr. Beck stated they have not received permits, therefore, it should not be under construction. Mr. Dave Bowen, Applicant, clarified that the storage building would be 16'6" x 20' and the pre- existing structure is 20' x 20'. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 6 Boardmember Koehler asked the Applicant if construction on the storage building has commenced. Mr. Bowen stated that it has. Boardmember Drew asked what the height is of the RV cover. Mr. Bowman stated that it is 12' high. Mr. Drew asked if the cover would consist of four posts and a cover. Mr. Bowman explained that no plans have been submitted, however he is looking at a cover with a peak roof. He said that the plans would meet code and would match the house. He pointed out that the cover would not be visible. Boardmember Drew asked what the code requirements are in regards to height. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed height meets the ordinance. Chairperson Piceno asked what percent of the construction has been completed. Mr. Bowman explained that they have completed the framing and cement flooring. Boardmember Laureta asked Mr. Bowman how long they have owned the lot. Mr. Bowman stated that they purchased the lot in 1972. No requests to address the Board on this case were submitted. Mr. Bowman reiterated his intent to meet all code requirements. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to ACCEPT ZV-00-07 as written. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler noted that the Board has consistently allowed other property owners the right to have lot coverage similar to SR-30 zoning district. He suggested that something be done to clarify this situation to keep property owners from having to come in for a variance. Boardmember Laureta expressed her opinion that the request is not out of character with the neighborhood and that the criteria have been met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-18 REQUEST: A request by Roger Plate for John and Judith Heath to approve a variance to reduce the side setback to 35'9" where 50 feet is required and increase lot coverage to 13.5% where 10% is maximum allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 5201 West Monte Cristo Avenue. Staff contact: Charles Beck (Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated that the request meets all four findings. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 7 Chairperson Piceno called for questions from the Board. No questions were raised. Mr. Roger Plate, Applicant, explained that the request is for a master bedroom extension, not a storage room. The Board had no questions for the Applicant. Mr. Wayne Simpson, 5118 West Monte Cristo, stated that he was President of the Home Owners Association at the time the code was adopted. He said that they were assured at that time that their issues would be addressed, however, to date, they have not. He noted that they have started a dialog with Mr. Svoboda and hope to be relieved of the variance hearings in the near future. Ms. Judith Heath, 5201 West Monte Cristo, stated that she has owned her house since 1978. She expressed her opinion that the Board understands the problem and hopes someone will advise them as to how to address a solution. Boardmember Drew agreed that it is a long process and expressed his sympathy. No other comments were made. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to ACCEPT ZV-00-18 as written. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Ransom expressed her support for the applicant. Boardmember Laureta stated that all criteria have been met. Boardmember Drew agreed that all criteria have been met. Boardmember Koehler stated that the request should be approved. Boardmember Laureta clarified that the motion is from a 50-foot setback. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-16 REQUEST: A request by Frank Elizondo to approve a variance to reduce the required side setbacks to 10 feet where 20 feet is required in the R-3 (Multiple-Residence) zoning district. The site is located approximately 224 feet north of the southeast corner of 61St Avenue and Ocotillo Road (6719 North 61St Avenue). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Ocotillo District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated the request meets all four findings. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 8 Boardmember Ransom asked if construction has already begun. Ms. Hacker stated that construction had begun, however, once the applicant received a Notice to Comply, the construction ceased. Mr. Frank Elizondo, Applicant, offered to answer questions. Boardmember Koehler asked if they are putting a new exterior on the entire house. Mr. Elizondo stated that the house is old and they want to put new siding on the exterior. No requests to address the Board on this case were submitted. No other comments were made. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to ACCEPT ZV-00-16 as written. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Drew stated that he is proud of the homeowner's attempt to improve their neighborhood. He said that the request meets all four findings. Boardmember Koehler agreed that the design and quality enhance the neighborhood. Boardmember Laureta expressed her opinion that the four criteria were met and that it would not encroach on or disturb any neighbors. Boardmember Ransom congratulated the Applicant on upgrading their property. Chairperson Piceno agreed that all four findings have been met, noting that there have been a significant number of precedents very similar to this instance where variances have been granted. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-17 REQUEST: A request by Curtis Lyon to approve a variance to reduce the required side setback on the east, west, and south property lines from 60 feet to 0 feet in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The site is a 4.9-acre parcel located at 10149 West Northern Avenue. Staff contact: Teresa Halverson (Yucca District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the request meets Findings 1, 2 and 4, however, Finding 3 is debatable. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 9 Boardmember Drew asked where the nine-foot measurement for the wall came from stating that he thought the city's ordinance limited the height to eight feet. Ms. Hacker explained that the nine-foot height comes from the height of the walls of the proposed building structure. Boardmember Koehler asked if the nine-foot wall would be stable as it is being built along the New River retaining wall. Ms. Hacker stated that they have not gotten into the design review process and, therefore, plans specifically dealing with drainage and retention issues have not been submitted. Boardmember Koehler asked if the sand and gravel pit, located on the west side of the retaining wall of the river, is still functioning. Mr. Jacobs explained that the sand and gravel operation is adjacent to the industrial park to the west. Mr. Koehler expressed concern about times when the river is flooding. Boardmember Drew asked if the nine-foot wall would abut the residential area or the river. Mr. Jacobs explained that it abuts property that is zoned A-1, which technically permits residential development, therefore the variance request has to address it as residential. He said that it is planned as business park and most likely at some point will be M-1, BP or other similar category. Mr. Frank R. Papscun, 1106 West Behrend Drive, Consulting Engineer for Applicant, explained that the nine-foot wall is for all four sides of the property and would be designed as a structural wall. He said that, since the slope of the land is to the south and east, they have proposed that all of the draining between the canopy areas and the storage units will drain to the south and east He stated that they would provide inverted roadways, which would drain into New River. He stated there are four other similar storage facilities within the City of Glendale that have been granted similar variances. Boardmember Koehler asked what the distance is between the wall and the New River embankment. Mr. Papscun estimated it to be 20 feet. Boardmember Drew asked how high the roof of the parking building would be. Mr. Papscun stated that it would be 8.5 feet. Boardmember Drew asked for clarification that the Applicant is asking for a wall that is higher than the standard ordinance requirement. Mr. Jacobs stated that the property is zoned for A-1 Agricultural. He explained that the General Plan designates an employment category as the future land use for this area. Mr. Drew expressed concern that, if the property was zoned residential, there would be a problem with a nine-foot wall with zero tolerances. Ms. Barbara Garland, 5012 North 64th Drive, stated that she opposes the zero lot line setback. She explained that her position is based on the fact that the surrounding area will develop as industrial and whatever variance is granted will apply to the property regardless of what is placed there. She stated that neighboring property owners may not enjoy the wall and suggested that there could also be safety issues. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 10 Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing. Mr. Papscun pointed out that property owners in the area were notified and that the Applicant only received one call in opposition. He said that, all things considered, the proposed layout would make it easier to get vehicles in and out of the facility. Boardmember Laureta noted that the notification letter sent out by Mr. Lyon included the 15-foot setback. She questioned whether that notification was correct and asked if additional material submitted by the City would clarify that for interested parties. Mr. Jacobs stated that everyone was notified that the variance request was for 0' setback. He stated that notification had met the intent of the CP Ordinance. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Flenner if he agreed that the notification met the intent. Mr. Flenner stated that he does. Mr. Jacobs noted that a copy of the site plan was also sent as part of the notification. Mr. Papscun reiterated the point that his client is only seeking what others have been granted and believes he should be treated the same as others in similar circumstances. Mr. Jacobs stated that if there is concern regarding the setback they could stipulate the variance to the applicant's site plan. Chairperson Piceno asked if the stipulation is included in the report. Mr. Jacobs stated that it is not. The meeting was recessed for a short break. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-17 with the stipulation that the development be consistent with the design appearing on Page 6 of the site plan and the condition recommended by staff that will ensure special privileges are not granted which would be inconsistent with the limitations of other similarly zoned property. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Laureta expressed concern that the notice was not correct. She stated that Finding 3 was not met, however Findings 1, 2 and 4 were. She suggested that it could be redesigned with a 15-foot setback, but stated that she understands why they want a zero setback. Boardmember Ransom stated that Findings 1, 2 and 4 are met. Boardmember Drew expressed his opinion that Finding 1 has not been met, as no special conditions exist in the surrounding area. He said that Finding 3 has not been met and that there is no hardship. In regards to Finding 4, he said that he would only agree if they know what the surrounding neighborhood will be. He stated that there is no reason to allow a nine-foot wall. He stated that he would not approve the request. Boardmember Koehler said that the area is unique, explaining that it is alongside New River, is subject to flooding and is remote. He said that the proposed nine-foot wall would increase August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 11 stability and security. He agreed that the request is consistent with what other mini-storage facilities have done. Chairperson Piceno stated that he has mixed feelings with respect to Boardmember Laureta's comments. He said that he would chide staff for not having made the notification letter more straight-forward, however the letter would not be material in changing this request. He agreed that the request is consistent with other storage facilities within the,city. He said that he would concur that Findings 1, 3 and 4 were met and agreed that, with the stipulations and conditions included in the motion,Finding 2 is also met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 2 (Boardmembers Laureta and Drew voted nay). Chairperson Piceno explained that, because four votes are required to approve the application, the request is denied. He noted that the Applicant could appeal the decision by contacting staff. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-21 REQUEST: A request by Robert Karl to approve multiple variances to build a two-story office building in the C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zoning district located at 6729 North 56th Avenue. The request includes: 1. To allow a fifteen (15) foot side building setback on the north property line where sixty (60) feet is the minimum required. 2. To allow zero percent on-site landscaping where twenty (20)percent is the minimum required. 3. To allow no landscape buffer on the east property line where fifteen (15) feet is the minimum required. Staff contact: Teresa Halverson (Ocotillo District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the setback meets all of the findings, however, the landscaping request only meets findings 1 and 4. Mr. Robert Karl, Applicant, clarified that the City redefined the ordinance in 1993 and he was told that he would be grandfathered in because he owned the property prior to the changes. He stated that he received six variances for a new addition and was informed that he would not have to go after those same variances again. He said that the block wall was recently installed to provide separation between his property and the residential area. He stated that the iron fence currently surrounding the property would be modified to have wood slats. He noted that there is no other developed C-3 on the street and his property is the only one that has right of way landscaping consistent with City requirements. He explained that his intent is to create as much parking on the property as possible. He said that he has not received any negative feedback. He noted that the alley acts as a visual and noise buffer, therefore a landscape buffer on the east side would not be necessary. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 12 Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Karl what is the height of the existing building. Mr. Karl stated that the existing building is 18-feet in height, with the new building's proposed height being approximately 22-feet. Boardmember Drew expressed concern about the visual effect it would have on their neighbor to the north. Mr. Karl pointed out that the neighbor sent a letter expressing their support of the request. He said there is a lot of traffic on the street and he feels it is important to provide parking on his property to reduce the number of cars parked on the street. He said he has done a lot of_upgrades to his property. Boardmember Drew asked the Applicant how he would be able to maintain the north side of his fence. Mr. Karl explained that there would be no maintenance required. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Karl if he has the letter from the city he referred to. Mr. Karl stated that he does not, however suggested that the City could tell him when they redefined the zoning. Mr. Jacobs stated that the zoning ordinance changed in 1993 creating setbacks for commercial and industrial districts. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Flenner if the three different parts to the request have to be voted on individually. Mr. Flenner stated that if the Board believes all three parts will not pass, they may want to call for separate votes. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Karl if this is an "all or nothing" request. Mr. Karl stated that it is, however he would not have a problem if the Board wanted to vote on each part of the request separately. No speaker requests were submitted. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Karl if the City was going to require that he maintain landscaping beyond his property line. Mr. Karl stated that he has a larger than normal right-of-way and he wants to landscape it to make it look nicer. He said that he would be required to maintain it, but questioned why it would not be counted towards the site landscaping. when looking at the whole picture. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to ACCEPT ZV-00-21 as written. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Koehler stated that he would support the request as it would enhance the neighborhood. Boardmember Drew stated that, while he usually has a problem with zero landscaping, he would also support the request. Boardmember Ransom asked when the City paved the alley. Mr. Karl stated that it was just recently paved. Boardmembers Laureta and Ransom both stated that they would also support the motion. Chairperson Piceno expressed his opinion that the request does not meet Findings 2 and 3 and stated that he would not support the request. August 10,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 13 Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 1 (Chairperson Piceno voted nay). Chairperson Piceno asked if there was any new business. There was none. Chairperson Piceno asked if there were any staff reports. Mr. Jacobs mentioned that staff has been asked to address the development standards in the A-1 zoning district. Boardmember Koehler reiterated that the traffic island in front of the Schwarz's house is a hazard. Chairperson Piceno noted that the next meeting is scheduled for September 14. Boardmember Drew stated that he would not be at the September meeting. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Linda Graham, Recording Secretary