Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 9/14/2000 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson, Ron Piceno, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Gordon Cheniae, Vice Chairperson Richard Gitelson Gayle Laureta Ann Ransom Ron Piceno, Chairperson Robert Koehler BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Daniel Drew CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Susan Hacker, Planner Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Teresa Halverson, Associate Planner Molly Hood, Senior Planner Linda Graham, Recording Secretary The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the August 10, 2000 meeting. Minor modifications were noted and the minutes were approved. 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. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-09 REQUEST: A request by Paul O'Connor to allow a variance from material and height required for perimeter wall along south and east property lines in the C-O (Commercial Office) zoning district. The property is located on the south side of Thunderbird Road, approximately 560 feet east of 67th Avenue (6591 West Thunderbird Road). Staff contact: Teresa Halverson (Sahuaro District). Ms. Halverson presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that whether or not the request meets Findings #1 and #2 is debatable. She said that a masonry/wrought iron wall along both the south and east property line would meet Findings #3 and#4. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the dirt road to the east is a dedicated road. Ms. Halverson said that it does not appear to be dedicated, it simply provides access to the property. Boardmember Gitelson asked, if residential were to come in east of the property, if the developer would be responsible for putting up a block wall. Ms. Halverson explained that the six-foot wall at issue would satisfy the wall requirement. Boardmember Gitelson asked why wrought iron would be acceptable if it would not obstruct the viewline of the parking lot. Ms. Halverson said that the wrought iron fence is considered to be the least acceptable alternative. Boardmember Koehler asked whether the parking facility abuts a residential area or a drainage area. Ms. Halverson explained that the parking facility abuts a vacant A-1 property. Boardmember Koehler asked if that property acts as a required catch-basin for the subdivision. Ms. Halverson stated that she did not know. Boardmember Koehler referred to a provision that says the Planning Director can determine whether the fence is appropriate and asked if the Planning Director has deemed the wrought iron fence not to be appropriate in this case. Mr. Jacobs explained that that provision is generally directed at the fence material used, not necessarily the height of the wall. Boardmember Koehler asked if a future owner of the vacant property would be required to erect a six-foot wall if they chose to put a residence on that property. Mr. Jacobs explained that a six-foot wall is usually built during the construction of a subdivision. He said that anytime a commercial use goes in next t to a residential district, the commercial developer is required to provide a screen wall. Boardmember Ransom suggested that the fence should be continued around the property. Ms. Halverson agreed. Chairman Piceno questioned the effectiveness of a see through fence as opposed to a block wall. Mr. Jacobs indicated that a block wall is the standard requirement and that the applicant is asking for a reduction of that standard in this case. He explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to do a half-block/half wrought iron wall. Chairman Piceno asked for clarification that, while the pipe fence is not adequate, should the Board so approve, a three-foot masonry/three- foot wrought iron wall would be sufficient. Ms. Halverson agreed. Chairman Piceno asked how Mr. Bloomquist's concern about the security of his property has been addressed. Ms. Halverson September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 3 explained that there is a six-foot block wall for the southern portion of the property on the west property line, which then decreases to a three-foot block wall and then further down to zero feet. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the wall in the back could be filled in rather than torn down and rebuilt. Ms. Halverson said that it could be. Mr. Paul O'Connor, 8036 North 10th Avenue, Phoenix, explained that he is the architect on this project. He said that the property owner, Dr. Mark Hughes, likes the pipe rail fence because it maintains an open rural feeling, noting the adjacent property owner, Mr. Moyes, agrees. He stated that Mr. Moyes indicated he has no intention of selling his property and plans an orchard on the south side and to maintain the pasture along the east side. Boardmember Koehler asked, due to the size of the vacant property to the east, if Mr. Moyes truly intends to have an orchard. Mr. O'Connor estimated the property to be five acres in size. Mr. Koehler stated that the size of the property would not be adequate for a ranch or farming operation and suggested it would be more of a hobby use. Mr. O'Connor agreed. Boardmember Gitelson asked Mr. O'Connor if he was the original architect for the development of the property. Mr. O'Connor stated that he was. Boardmember Gitelson asked why there was a block wall on the west side if it was his intention to maintain the rural feeling. He explained that Mr. Bloomquist, the property owner to the west, erected the wall approximately two months ago to screen off a storage area in the back of his property. He stated that Dr. Hughes and Mr. Moyes do not want to look out their windows and see block walls. Boardmember Gitelson pointed out that, alternatively, they would see a parking lot. Mr. O'Connor agreed that there is a parking lot on the south side of the property. Dr. Hughes explained that they have attempted to keep an open rural feeling, noting that Mr. Moyes, in a letter, objected to having his pipe rail fence replaced with a six-foot wall. He said that Mr. Moyes indicated that a small park and orchard would be put in on the south side and that he has no intention of allowing the area to the south and east to be developed. He noted that all of his neighbors have told him how much they like the look of the building and prefer looking at the building than a six-foot block wall. He noted that Mr. Bloomquist's development to the west matches their development in terms of color and materials. Chairman Piceno asked staff if they have seen the letter from Mr. Moyes. Mr. Jacobs stated that, to his knowledge, they have not. No other comments were made. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-09. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Hood about the counsel she gave the applicant in terms of maintaining the rural area. Ms. Hood explained that they have a set of commercial design guidelines they follow to ensure a development is compatible with the surrounding area. She said that Mr. O'Connor argued that the pasture to the east was agricultural in nature and that he wanted to pursue that type of look for the building. Ms. Hood stated that it is her job to remain neutral and ensure that the city's objectives are met. She said that there was a block wall shown on the site plan at the time the design review for the property was approved. She noted that their desire for a block/wrought iron wall was discussed at that time, however, because it would have held up the approval process, the applicant decided to meet all of the ordinance requirements and pursue a variance at a later date. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he likes the building, but is concerned with the precedent they would set for other commercial buildings. He said that he does not see it as a rural area considering the fact that there is a parking lot in the back. Boardmember Koehler stated that he feels the fencing along the south side of the property is attractive, both from the property itself and from the residential properties nearby. He said that he is inclined to require that the rear fence be extended, but finds no particular fault with the south fence line. He stated that he has reservations about the pipe fence on the east. Vice Chair Cheniae stated that he does not view the area as rural. He explained that he has a problem conjecturing as to what future uses would be on adjacent properties. He said that the request does not meet the four findings, Findings #1 and #2 in particular. He stated that he would not support the motion. Boardmember Ransom stated that she likes the look of the building and that she has no problem with the south fence. She said, however, that she does not like the pipe fence. She stated that the wrought iron fence would look nice, and agrees that the city needs more of an open feel. She agreed that the request does not meet Findings #1 and #2, stating, therefore, that she would not be able to support the motion. Ms. Laureta concurred with Vice Chair Cheniae's comments. She said that they have to base their judgment on the four findings and current zoning, therefore, she could not support the request. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Piceno explained that the Applicant could appeal the decision by contacting the Planning Department for further information. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 5 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-14 REQUEST: A request by Richardson - Bauer to approve a variance to allow an existing view fence in lieu of the 6' high block wall required between non-residential and residential uses in the C-O (Commercial Office) zoning district. The property is located at the southeast corner of Bell Road and Grandview Road, at 7075 West Bell Road. Staff Contact: Molly Hood (Cholla District). Ms. Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the request appears to meet all of the required findings. In response to Boardmember Gitelson's question, Ms. Hood further clarified the location of the property. Boardmember Koehler asked Ms. Hood why staff believes Finding #1 has been met. Ms. Hood explained that they consider this is to be a unique situation, noting that the impact is more on the people in the subdivision than on the property owner. Boardmember Gitelson asked for clarification that three sides of the property are already fenced in and that the issue is whether they have to replace the wrought iron portion of the wall with block. Ms. Hood agreed. Boardmember Laureta asked if this issue would have come before the Board had the wall originally been built as solid block. Ms. Hood stated that the issue became before the Board because a portion of the wall does not meet the current ordinance requirements. Boardmember Koehler asked if the subdivision and office complex were built by the same developer. Ms. Hood stated that they were not. She explained that the developer of the subdivision constructed the block wall and view fence at the time the subdivision was built. Mr. Jacobs explained that the developer's original intent was to have a view wall to allow residents to view the retention area with a solid wall to the north. He said that Shea Homes reversed the walls when they were constructed. He explained that the applicant did not create the situation and, while the residences do have a screen wall and are unable to see the area, the ordinance requires that the office developer be responsible for a six-foot block wall. Boardmember Gitelson questioned whether a resident could come before the Board and ask to have their wall replaced with a view fence. Mr. Flaaen stated that a resident would not have to come before the City, unless they shared the wall with an adjacent property owner. Mr. Steve Bauer, 320 East McDowell Road, representing Victoria Properties, stated that it is not his client's desire to be relieved of any cost associated with the construction of the wall. He explained that they are facing a security issue, not only for their project, but for the residents as well. He suggested that a solid masonry wall could create a security threat, explaining that September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 6 SEPTED requires view fences and view corridors in non-secured areas. He said that they do not want to jeopardize the security they already have in place by creating places where people could congregate without being seen. Chairman Piceno asked Mr. Bauer if he spoke with police officers. Mr. Bauer stated that he has not spoken to police officers from the City of Glendale. He pointed out, however, he is Chairman of Tempe's Design Review Board, which includes security issues in their planning and design review . Mr. Jacobs stated that the view fence concept was developed as a way of mitigating the security issues they would face if the property were completely surrounded by a block wall. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-14. Vice Chair Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Ransom stated that the wall looks great and does what it is intended to do. Boardmember Laureta stated that she believes the criteria have been met and that she supports the request. Vice Chair Cheniae stated that he concurs with the staff report and would support the variance. Boardmember Koehler stated that the circumstances are not dramatically different from the previous case, however, he believes Finding#1 is probably met and Findings #2, #3 and#4 have been met. He said that the end result is desirable and, therefore, he would support the motion. Boardmember Gitelson voiced his support of the variance. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-26 REQUEST: A request by Larry Kennedy to approve a variance to allow 30% lot coverage where 10% is allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located west of 53rd Avenue on Greeway Road (5318 West Greenway Road). Staff Contact: Susan Hacker (Sahuaro District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the variance appears to meet Findings #1, #2 and #4, however, whether or not Finding #3 is met is debatable. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 7 Boardmember Koehler asked if the building has already been erected. Ms. Hacker stated that the last time she visited the site the building had not been completed. Boardmember Koehler asked if the building, as it exists, encompasses 26 percent of the property. Ms. Hacker stated that if the building has already been constructed, it would be included in the 26.percent lot coverage. Mr. Larry Kennedy, 5318 West Greenway Road, stated that the structure is 75 percent complete. He explained that he previously had a penuit, but allowed it to lapse and that the requirements have since changed. Boardmember Koehler asked about the 4x4's extending from the side of building. Mr. Kennedy explained that they are temporary for building purposes. He said that it is a freestanding structure. He confirmed for Boardmember Koehler that he is not adding to the structure to create a storage space between the fence and the north wall of the building. Boardmember Ransom asked if there are other buildings on the property. Mr. Kennedy stated there are not. Boardmember Ransom asked about the height of the building. Mr. Kennedy explained that the building is 24 x 32. He confirmed that the building to the northwest is identical in size. Boardmember Gitelson asked the Applicant when he applied for the variance. Mrs. Rebecca Kennedy explained that the original permit was issued approximately two-and-a-half years ago, however, due to personal reasons, construction was delayed and the permit expired. Vice Chair Cheniae asked the Applicant why they continued with the construction knowing that the variance had to first be granted. Mr. Kennedy stated that he did not know the variance had to be granted first. Boardmember Gitelson asked if any construction has been done since applying for the variance. Mrs. Kennedy explained that they were not aware the permit was invalid. She said that no construction has occurred since they applied for the variance. Vice Chair Cheniae asked the Applicant if they knew the building permit they requested in 1996 would require a variance to the A-1 zone. Mrs. Kennedy stated that they did not. Vice Chair Cheniae asked the Applicant if they were told when they applied for the most recent building permit that a variance to the zoning would be required. Mrs. Kennedy stated that they were not. Boardmember Koehler asked if the 26 percent includes the storage room on the east side of the house. Mr. Kennedy stated that it does. Ms. Mona Rodriguez, 5327 West Beck Lane, explained that she contacted the City to find out if the Applicant had a building permit and was told a permit had not been issued. She stated that the building is as tall as a two-story house and is all they can see from their backyard. She characterized the building as an eye sore. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 8 Mr. Henry Rodriguez, 5327 West Beck Lane, suggested that the Applicant knew he would need a variance before he began construction. He mentioned that a bridal path runs along the property. He voiced his strong opposition to the request. Chairman Piceno asked Mr. Rodriguez if he believed the variance would have a detrimental effect to him as an adjoining property owner. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it would. Mr. Gitelson asked Ms. Rodriguez what the setback is to the wall that adjoins the two properties. Ms. Rodriguez estimated the setback to be 15 feet. Mrs. Kennedy clarified that her husband submitted plans for the project when he first applied for the permit and the plans were approved. She said that they have a tri-level home, the height of which exceeds the height of the building. She said that the building is 17 feet high, while their home exceeds 20 feet at its highest point. Vice Chair Cheniae asked if there are any A-1 zoning ordinance guidelines relating to the height of structures as opposed to lot coverage. Mr. Jacobs stated that accessory buildings have a maximum height of 20 feet. He noted that the setback requirements for large lots are not as great as typical because the lots are larger. Vice Chair Cheniae asked if the setback is a problem. Mr. Jacobs explained that the setback relates to the height of the structure closest to the adjacent property. He stated that this project meets the standard setbacks. Boardmember Gitelson asked what is the height of the side of the building. Mr. Jacobs stated that the side of the building is 12 feet and that it extends up to 17 feet at the roof's peak. Boardmember Gitelson asked, had the structure not already been built, if the process would have been that the Board would have granted a variance, the Applicant would have submitted a plan and that the plan would have then been open for public comment. Mr. Jacobs pointed out that the height and setbacks for the accessory building meet the ordinance and that the variance relates only to the need for additional lot coverage. Vice Chair Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-26. Chairman Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Koehler stated that the structure is within the legal limits if the variance is approved, however he does not know of any other property in the area that has had a 30 percent lot coverage approved. He questioned whether staff measured the foundation or the actual structure, noting that the building extends approximately two feet beyond the foundation. He said that he does not believe 30 percent coverage is warranted, but would approve 26 percent coverage. Boardmember Laureta stated that Finding#3 is her main concern. She said that she does not see a big difference between 26 and 30 percent lot coverage, therefore she would support a 30 percent lot coverage. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 9 Boardmember Ransom stated that she would prefer there be a stipulation requiring 26 percent instead of 30 percent. She said that she does not agree that all findings have been met and that she would deny the motion. Vice Chair Cheniae asked for clarification that when the structure is added to the existing house it equates to 30 percent lot coverage. Ms. Hacker stated that it equates to 26 percent lot coverage. Boardmember Gitelson suggested Finding .#4 may not have been met had it gone through the proper channels. He said, however, he would not support the motion because 30 percent lot coverage is not the absolute minimum necessary. Chairperson Piceno suggested that this case is different because it involves a smaller lot. He stated, however, he believes they have made significant precedence in approving other A-1 cases for up to 30 percent when something less would have sufficed. He said that he would support the variance request of 30 percent. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 3. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-26 with a stipulation that 26 percent lot coverage be the maximum allowed. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. There was no further discussion. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. The meeting was recessed for a short break at 8:41 p.m. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-28 REQUEST: A request by Don Cramer, on behalf of Irby Cain, to approve a variance to reduce the required side yard setback along a portion of the south property line from 15 feet to 0 feet in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. Located at 5801 West San Miguel Avenue. Staff contact: Molly Hood (Cactus District). Mr. Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the request meets all four findings, however, should the Board decide to grant the variance, she would recommend it be subject to the following condition: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary site plan dated July 12, 2000. The height of the wall at the property line shall not exceed 12 feet 4 inches. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 10 Vice Chair Cheniae asked Ms. Hood if the possibility of eliminating one building was discussed with the Applicant and if the Applicant understood that they would not have had to come before the Board had that been done. Ms. Hood stated that that was discussed with the Applicant, however, mini-storage facilities typically like to use the buildings as their perimeter wall because it is more efficient. She said that the Applicant was aware he could have avoided the variance situation. Boardmember Koehler asked for confirmation that the property is zoned for a five-story building. Ms. Hood explained that the area is located in the South Grand Employment District, which allows a higher than typical floor-area-ratio as well as a 56-foot maximum building height. Mr. Don Cramer, 707 West Missouri Avenue, explained that the addition is small, less than 19,000 square feet. He said that 12 feet 4 inches is the maximum building height they plan to construct and the buildings along 59th Avenue have been offset and landscaped to create more interest. Boardmember Koehler asked Mr. Kramer if the buildings would have flat roofs. Mr. Cramer explained that they have a I/a inch per foot slope to the interior, therefore, all drainage would occur on their property. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-28 with the stipulation that development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary site plan dated July 12, 2000 and the wall at the property line shall not exceed 12 feet 4 inches. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Ransom agreed that the property has nice landscaping. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he believes the request meets all of the findings. Boardmember Koehler stated that he believes the property will be a contribution to the neighborhood and that he would support the motion. Vice Chair Cheniae voiced his support of the motion. Chairman Piceno stated that he supports the motion. Boardmember Laureta asked if there were any comments from neighbors. Ms. Hood stated that the Applicant went through a citizen participation process, but received no response. Boardmember Laureta stated that she has no objection to the motion. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 11 Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 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 and west 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: Ray Jacobs (Yucca District). Mr. Flaaen explained that one of the two Board members who voted to deny the original motion would have to make a motion to bring it back. Chairperson Piceno asked for clarification that if the motion was brought forward and approved, the hearing would be rescheduled and re-noticed. Mr. Flaaen stated that was correct. Mr. Jacobs presented the application, explaining that on August 10, 2000 the Board of Adjustment voted 3-2 to approve the request. He said that that motion failed, however, since 4 votes are required for approval. He agreed that it would require one of the members of the prevailing vote to make the motion to place the item on a future agenda. Boardmember Koehler asked if a member not present at the August 10 vote could introduce a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Flaaen stated that they could not. Mr. Mark Hughes, 8253 West Thunderbird Road, presented a letter from James Bond Trucking Company, the owner of the adjacent A-1 property to the south. He stated that Mr. Bond is the only neighbor to the property and was aware of the previous hearing. He said that if the motion to reconsider is passed, the Applicant would ensure that the notice sent out specifically states that the variance is considering a reduction from 60 feet to 0 feet. In regards to the concerns expressed over the height of the buildings, Mr. Hughes explained that their roofline would be at grade with Mr. Bond's property. He said that they have found four other sites where 0-foot variances have been granted. He acknowledged that several of those cases involved in-fill properties. He noted that their property is in an industrial zone with no possibility of residential development around them. He said that their proposal is unique in that they are proposing a storage facility for large boats and RV units. He explained that they will be stored under a canopy in the center of their property. He said that a 15-foot setback would create a blind alley, possibly contributing to crime, vagrancy and litter issues. He also suggested putting the buildings up against the wall would increase the structural integrity of both the wall and the facility. Vice Chair Cheniae asked the Applicant's representative what he meant by a full hearing. Mr. Hughes explained that he meant he wants to be sure all Board members are in attendance when the case is reheard. September 14,2000 Board of Adjustment Page 12 Boardmember Laureta stated that she feels the letter from Mr. Lyon was severely critical of staff. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to RECONSIDER ZV-00-17. Vice Chair Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Linda Graham, Recording Secretary