Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 11/9/2000 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 9, 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: Daniel Drew Robert Koehler Ron Piceno, Chairperson Ann Ransom Richard Gitelson Gayle Laureta BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Cheniae, Vice Chairperson CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, Deputy City Attorney Susan Hacker, Planner Charles Beck, Associate Planner Linda Graham, Recording Secretary Chairperson Piceno explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the October 12, 2000 meeting. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 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 the Board is required to hold a public hearing before making a decision on a variance or appeal request. He explained the purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony for the Board's consideration. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 2 Chairperson Piceno called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-04 REQUEST: A request by Wendy Hultsman for Billie Rosen for a variance to reduce the required side and rear setbacks for accessory structures from 6 feet to one foot in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The site is a one-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of 53rd Avenue and Monte Cristo Avenue (5301 West Monte Cristo Avenue). Staff contact: Susan Hacker(Sahuaro District). Ms. Hacker presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She said the variance does not meet any of the required findings. Wendy Hultsman, 3641 West Aire Libre, Phoenix, said the staff report is perplexing given the number of factual errors it contains. She noted Ms. Rosen's residence referred to in Summary of Fact 2 is actually closer to 2300 square feet. She said two of the poles referenced in Summary of Fact 3 are located about 30 feet in from the east side of the property. She stated personal use was the primary reason Ms. Rosen purchased the property. In regards to the comment regarding Ms. Rosen being found guilty of an illegal land use, she said the judgement passed by Judge Ring was good activity, wrong place, no fine and no punishment. She noted all club activities ceased several weeks before the judgement was passed. She said Ms. Rosen was granted permission to work her dogs in her yard and ordered only to cease club activities. Ms. Hultsman said it is clear Ms. Rosen can use her property for her own hobbies, including working with dogs. She explained the lights were placed where they were because the intent was to direct the light into her property, thereby negligibly impacting neighboring properties. She noted that a City of Glendale official checked the shielding on the lights approximately two and a half years ago and found everything to be in compliance. She stated moving the lights in an additional six feet would greatly increase the chance of a person or dog running into them and reducing the pole heights would provide insufficient light. She stated the rest of Ms. Rosen's neighbors are free to enjoy the use of their one-acre lots to practice their own hobbies. She said additional shielding, far beyond the level required by the city, has been placed on each of the lights along the perimeter of Ms. Rosen's property. She stated she worked with Ms. Rosen to hire a lighting consultant after the neighborhood meeting last March, when it appeared neighbors were in agreement that different shielding might alleviate their concerns. She said the Arizona Lighting Council recommended Mr. Don Happ of DH Lighting Solutions to her. She explained Mr. Happ went to the property and offered a much more comprehensive design. She said the new shields were put in place immediately and all lights were angled to 45 degrees. She stated Ms. Rosen asked Mr. Happ to return to the property on October 17 to check the amount of light being emitted beyond her property line. She referred to a report submitted by Mr. Happ and asked Mr. Happ to review the contents of the report. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 3 Mr. Don Happ, 4702 East Acoma, Phoenix, owner and principal of DH Lighting Solutions, explained they are a practicing design firm and provide consultation services, including lighting education. He stated they are the lighting consultant for the City of Scottsdale. He said, in an effort to determine standards in regards to light trespass, they contacted the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), the recognized source of lighting practice within North America since 1906. He stated IESNA completed an eight-year study in 1999 on light trespass and developed quantifiable metrics to measure the amount of light that was objectionable to the average person. He said he used these standards in the study he performed at the Rosen residence. He explained they allow .8 foot-candles at a property line in an average neighborhood, with a foot-candle being the amount of light shown on a wall from a candle held one foot away. He said the light is measured in a vertical orientation, facing into the property. In an effort to be conservative in this case, he said they went to a Zone II, low ambient brightness, thereby reducing the standard to .3. He said measurements along the south property line ranged from .01 to .09 with an average of .024. He stated measurements along the east side of the property registered .13 and those along the property just south of Ms. Rosen's registered at zero . He said the property to the northwest also measured at zero light. He acknowledged obtaining much higher readings prior to the installation of the new shields. He noted the meter used for the analysis is the same one used in work performed for the City of Scottsdale and is the official meter utilized in zoning and code enforcement hearings. He said, in his professional opinion, the lighting is not a nuisance and the applicant has taken extraordinary steps to reduce the light trespass coming off the site. He stated, knowing the type of activities being held in the yard, he also would have placed the poles around the perimeter. He said lights mounted 20 feet high would be much more obtrusive on the neighborhood. Boardmember Drew asked what effect moving the poles in three or four feet would have on the light trespass measurements previously taken. Mr. Happ acknowledged that light decreases with the square of the difference, therefore, there would be a minor change. He stated, however, because they are already down into hundredths of foot-candles, the reduction would be very minimal. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Happ if he took readings where the activity occurs. Mr. Happ said the readings taken within the yard were approximately 1.5 to 5 foot-candles, noting those measurements were taken prior to the installation of the shields. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Happ how he went about taking the measurements from neighbor's yards. Mr. Happ explained they walked down the fence to the south, stopping at the point equal to the back of the house. He said they stood at the edge of the driveway on the property to the northwest. Ms. Hultsman said Ms. Rosen rarely uses the yard on weekends and only two to three nights a week at most. She stated Ms. Rosen's usage of the lights is minimal. She said zoning laws permit several alternatives, explaining lights could be positioned in any of the following modes: 1) they could be on the barn, facing out, up to 20-feet high; 2) they could be on poles, up to 20 feet high, inside the property line a designated distance; or 3) they could be banked on poles at a designated number of feet, turning in or out. She said all of those options would be much more intrusive than the current configuration and she believes this is good reason for granting the variance. She said the poles would be just as visible to those passing by the fence if they were November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 4 moved in six feet. She asked the Board to consider that moving a ten-foot well-shielded light in six feet would have practically no impact on light dispersal outside the property, nor decrease the visibility of light poles. She expressed her opinion that each of the required findings have been met. She submitted photos of the lights, taken at dusk, and line of site photos from neighboring properties. She noted that none of the individuals who live on the side of Ms. Rosen's property and face the chain link fence appear to have any concerns. She pointed out that none of the neighbors ever attempted to speak with Ms. Rosen about their concerns. She said if the setback of the lights was of such concern to Ms. Rosen's neighbor's, she would have thought someone would have said something during the four years since the lights were installed. She said Mrs. and Mr. Ballengee are on record as saying they have no problem with the light configuration as it now exists. She said Mr. Ballengee no longer had any concerns once the wall separating their properties was erected approximately three and a half years ago. She stated Ms. Martinez is also on record as having no problem with the current lighting configuration. She concluded stating Ms. Rosen has abided by all of the requests coming from the city. In response to Chairperson Piceno's question, Ms. Hultsman explained when it came to their attention that they needed to obtain a permit, the City told her they would first need to seek a variance. Boardmember Drew asked who from the City of Glendale inspected and approved the lighting. Ms. Hultsman said it was Mr. Frye with Code Enforcement. Boardmember Laureta asked when the lights were installed. Ms. Hultsman said they were installed four a half years ago. Boardmember Gitelson asked for confirmation that club activities no longer occur on the property. Ms. Hultsman said Ms. Rosen uses the yard to train her dogs and that no other activities occur in the yard. Boardmember Gitelson asked how the lights are secured in the ground and if it would be costly to remove the lights. Ms. Hultsman stated they have two-foot footers and it would be rather costly to remove each of the lights. Boardmember Gitelson asked for clarification that, should the lights have to be removed, lights would be installed on the barn. Ms. Hultsman stated that was correct. Boardmember Drew asked if the lights all come on at the same time. Ms. Hultsman said four separate switches control the lights. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ms. Olivia Martinez, 5312 West Tierra Buena, Glendale, said she was first approached by Mr. David Yanez, the Code Compliance Supervisor, who wanted to know if she had any problems with the person who trained dogs on the property to the rear of her house. She said she found out Ms. Rosen did not have a permit when Ms. Rosen cancelled their court date and a variance request was issued. She stated the lights are very bright and really come into her house during November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 5 the winter months when the trees have lost their leaves. She noted Ms. Rosen put a brick wall up at the same time she asked for the variance. She said Ms. Rosen used to have a lot of traffic coming and going, noting Ms. Hultsman conducted most of the training. She suggested Ms. Rosen would go back to court to try to reinstate dog-training classes. She said they do not want the increased number of dogs and traffic in the neighborhood. She acknowledged that the parks in the area also have lights, stating, however, they are not as obtrusive. Boardmember Koehler asked if the new shields have made a difference. Ms. Martinez admitted the shields had made some difference. In response to Boardmember Laureta's question, Ms. Martinez pointed out where her house is located in relation to Ms. Rosen's property. Boardmember Gitelson pointed out that they have not gone through a winter season since the installation of the new shields. Ms. Martinez said she still sees the lights hit one of her neighbor's yards. Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Martinez her opinion of the expert's report. Ms. Martinez asked if the expert took measurements from her backyard. Mr. Happ said they walked along the property line and obtained a reading of .03. Ms. Martinez noted that the area streetlights are amber colored, whereas Ms. Rosen's are white. Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Martinez if she would be in favor of removing the lights even if it meant lights would be installed on the barn. He said he believes it would be better to have lights that face into the property than to have them placed on the barn facing out. Mr. Bill Scott, 5210 West Greenway, Glendale, said the lights illuminate the entire street and are very, very intrusive. Boardmember Gitelson asked Mr. Scott where he lives in relation to the property. Mr. Scott explained he lives on Greenway Avenue. Boardmember Gitelson asked Mr. Scott if he could see the lights from his property. Mr. Scott stated he could. Boardmember Gitelson asked if he has noticed any reduction in light since the installation of the shields. Mr. Scott explained the lights are not as obtrusive at his house, but they can be seen. He said when he drives down 53rd Avenue he is struck by how the lights illuminate the street. Chairperson Piceno asked Mr. Scott how far he lives from the subject property. Mr. Scott estimated he lives less than one-quarter mile from Ms. Rosen's property. Ms. Nancy Abbott, 5233 West Monte Cristo, Glendale, said she lives in the house directly east of Ms. Rosen's property. She stated she has a chain link fence that faces Ms. Rosen's backyard and does not notice light coming from her yard without purposely looking. Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Abbott if she feels the lights are intrusive on the street. Ms. Abbott said the lights are not intrusive. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 6 Boardmember Ransom noted Ms. Abbott's trees have had all their leaves since the installation of the new shields and asked if she expects any problem once the leaves fall. Ms. Abbott said she did not have a problem during the winter, even prior to the new shields. Ms. Maryjane Zemba, 5304 West Tierra Buena, noted that when Ms. Rosen was having dog shows on her property, Ms. Abbott started to also. She said the lights are very intrusive and the shields were only installed within the last two weeks. She said Ms. Rosen was sited last fall and the records show she had the lights on almost every night last winter. She said they started complaining to the city years ago about the lights. She said the City told them Ms. Rosen was instructed to shield the lights, however, the shields were taken off again shortly thereafter. She said they have no assurance Ms. Rosen would keep these measures either. Chairperson Piceno asked Ms. Zemba if she has a problem with the measures currently in place. Ms. Zemba said the lights are still intrusive. She said' a lot of people at the neighborhood meeting were concerned about the lights and that Ms. Rosen has options if she wants to work with the neighbors. She asked the Board to enforce the zoning already in place. She said Ms. Rosen should have looked into the zoning and obtained the necessary permit prior to installing the lights. Boardmember Drew asked when the complaints about the lights started. Ms. Zemba said it was prior to the installation of these lights, which was four years ago. She questioned why a person would need 12 lights for a one-acre property, noting the five-acre park in the area has twelve lights. Boardmember Drew asked how many times the lights were on during an average week. Ms. Zemba stated they were on almost every night until April. She said Ms. Rosen turned the lights off at 10:00 p.m., but only after complaints were made to the city. Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Zemba if the shields have made any difference. Ms. Zemba said the lights are different now, but at least one of them still shines into her house. She noted the lights are not on as often now because the dog shows are no longer being held. Boardmember Ransom asked if the block wall offered any shield from the lights. Ms. Zemba said the wall has not helped because the lights are four feet above the wall. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Zemba for confirmation that the shields have not helped. Ms. Zemba compared the light that comes into her family room to that of headlights. Boardmember Drew asked how often the lights have been on during the last 30 days. Ms. Zemba estimated it to be two nights per week for one to two hours. Mr. Joel Zemba, 5304 West Tierra Buena, Glendale, said they bought the property because it was in a quite, peaceful, residential neighborhood and it was that way until Ms. Rosen installed the lights. He said they are no longer able to sit out and see the stars. He said the lights went up when the dog training classes began and questioned why they are still necessary if the classes are no longer allowed. He asked why they have to fight to get the lights to meet code. He agreed the shields could be taken off and they have no assurance as to how long they would remain on November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 7 the lights. He said the lights still bother him, even with the shields, and asked the Board to force Ms. Rosen to meet code. Boardmember Koehler asked Mr. Zemba if it was his impression that the lights would also be lowered if they were moved in. He said moving the lights alone would put them within code and could, in fact, be raised to 15 or 20 feet. Ms. Hacker explained they would be allowed to be seven feet high with a three-foot setback and that from that point on, there is a one-to-one ratio. Ms. Ransom asked if there is a limitation on height. Ms. Hacker said there is a twenty-foot height limit on any accessory structure. Ms. Ransom asked if there could be a stipulation included with the variance limiting the height. Mr. Jacobs said it would be possible to stipulate a height limit. Ms. Sheila Giarrusso, 5225 West Monte Cristo, Glendale, said she lives two doors east of Ms. Rosen's property. She stated they use their patio every night during the summer and spring.and have had no problems with Ms. Rosen's lights. She said Ms. Rosen has been a good neighbor and has complied with all of the regulations. She questioned comments made about Ms. Abbott having dog shows, stating she lives next door to Ms. Abbott and has never known her to have dog shows. Ms. Giarrusso confirmed for Boardmember Drew that there are no trees or any other type of shield between her property and Ms. Rosen's property. Boardmember Drew asked how often Ms. Rosen's lights were on last winter. Ms. Giarrusso estimated three nights a week. She said she kind of like the lights because she walks a lot and feels she can see better. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Giarrusso how often she uses her patio in the winter. Ms. Giarrusso said maybe a couple nights a week. Chairperson Piceno asked Ms. Giarrusso how high the trees are in Ms. Abbott's yard that are directly between Ms. Rosen's property and hers. Ms. Giarrusso said the trees are further down the acre, not close to her patio. She said there are no trees in the path of the light. Ms. Pat Wilcox, 5317 West Monte Cristo Avenue, explained there is one property between her and Ms. Rosen's properties. She said they moved to that quiet, established neighborhood in 1986, noting most homeowners take exceptional care of their homes and properties. She stated the neighborhood changed when Ms. Rosen moved in, explaining members of her dog club came to her residence for outside activities. She said court records show that three classes of approximately 12 people with their dogs met each evening four to five times a week and two to three times in the mornings. She stated this caused more than 100 vehicles to drive through and park in their neighborhood every week. She pointed out the City of Glendale filed and won a nuisance suit that ceased most of that activity. She explained Ms. Rosen installed 12 10-foot halogen lights on her property, causing her backyard to be very bright when they were turned on. She said the lights shine onto adjacent properties and are brightly visible from her patio. She suggested, because Ms. Rosen is an attorney, she was aware of the city codes when she illegally installed the lights. She expressed her opinion that Ms. Rosen's request for a variance after the November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 8 fact was a calculated maneuver. She asked the Board to deny Ms. Rosen's request and demand that she either remove the lights or reduce their height to comply with code. Ms. Karen Ballengee, 5309 West Monte Cristo, Glendale, said she called the police within 30 days of Ms. Rosen moving into the neighborhood in regards to a nuisance. She said two police officers came and told her there was not much they could do. She suggested Ms. Rosen's position with the Attorney General intimidated the police officers into doing nothing. She said Ms. Rosen should have discussed her plans with the neighborhood prior to the installation of the lights. She agreed Ms. Rosen does not need 12 lights on her property if she is no longer running the training classes. She stated Ms. Rosen turned on all of her lights last month and she believes it was to send a message to the neighborhood as she did not hear Ms. Rosen or her dogs in the backyard. She said Ms. Rosen finally moved the heads on the two lights closest to her property two weeks ago, but for the past eight months they shown directly onto her property. She pointed out that the two people in support of the request have 53rd Avenue as a buffer between them and Ms. Rosen's property. She said, regardless of whether the lights are moved, they need to come down to the level of the brick wall. Boardmember Drew asked how often the lights were used last winter and what hours were they operated during. Ms. Ballengee said they came on at dusk and, when she was at her highest use, were on at least four evenings each week. She stated Ms. Rosen agreed to turn the lights off at approximately 10:00 p.m. after meeting with several City people. Boardmember Drew asked if the lights were shielded when they were originally installed. Ms. Ballengee stated they were not. Boardmember Drew asked how long it was before the shields were installed. Ms. Ballengee said she believes the City required the shields be put in place when the lights were permanently installed. Boardmember Gitelson asked Ms. Ballengee if there was any difference in the amount of light shining onto her property since the installation of the shields. Ms. Ballengee said the only difference has been due to the change in the direction of the two lights that shown directly onto her property. She stated the light level does not currently bother her, but believes it is still unacceptable because they have no assurance that the lights would not be moved again. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of the case. Chairperson Piceno called for the Applicant's closing remarks. Ms. Hultsman said this process exists to allow for a variance. She clarified there are currently 10 perimeter lights on the property. She showed pictures of the property. Questions were raised as to Ms. Hultsman's ability to introduce new evidence. Mr. Flaaen advised it was up to Chairperson Piceno as to whether or not to accept the additional evidence. Chairperson Piceno found the additional evidence acceptable. Ms. Hultsman pointed out the lack of light spilling out of Ms. Rosen's property. She said the pictures were taken from Ms. Martinez and Ms. Wilcox's yards, with a wide-open lens at dusk. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 9 She noted the trees are without leaves approximately one and a half months of the year. She said moving the lights would be very expensive and it would be most likely Ms. Rosen would put lights on the barn facing outward if the variance were not granted. She said the shields have never been taken off the lights since being installed. She said the lights were turned on last month to allow the dogs to run around, not in attempt to be spiteful. Boardmember Drew asked when the lights were cemented into the ground. Ms. Hultsman said approximately four years ago. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Hultsman when the first shields were installed. Ms. Hultsman said the shields went on when the lights were installed and there were shields on the halogens prior to that. She said the improved shields were installed last August, pursuant to Mr. Happ's recommendation. She noted the City of Glendale inspected and approved the smaller shields. Boardmember Drew asked when Ms. Rosen was informed the lights were in violation. Ms. Hultsman said Ms. Rosen was informed in October 1999 and immediately began conversations with Mr. Griffith in the City's Planning Department. Boardmember Ransom asked Ms. Hultsman if they would consider lowering the light posts and installing permanent shields. Ms. Hultsman explained lowering the poles would cause tremendous shadows and would require the installation of additional lighting. She said the shields are fairly well attached already and questioned whether they could be more permanently installed. The Applicant made no further comments. Ms. Hacker directed that all evidence should become part of the permanent record. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-04. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Gitelson said they have never had a case with more conflicting testimony. He said he is not sure the four findings were met. He stated he does not hold the fact that Ms. Rosen was not familiar with the city's code against her as a lot of people make the same mistake. He said comments about the intrusiveness of the dogs in a mute point since the land is zoned agricultural. He agreed safety concerns should be considered when making the decision. Boardmember Koehler said the request does not meet any of the required findings. Boardmember Drew agreed the request does not meet any of the required findings, stating he would not support the motion. Boardmember Ransom applauded the neighborhood for getting involved. She stated the four findings were not met based on the information presented. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 10 Boardmember Laureta expressed her opinion that the request would be a misuse of the variance, stating she does not believe it meets the four findings. She applauded the property owner's efforts to placate the neighbors and said she hopes deliberate repercussions would not be made against the neighbors. Chairperson Piceno said the problem is that whether light is intrusive or not is a very subjective judgement. He said, however, they cannot ignore complaints made by the neighbors. He suggested Ms. Rosen contact the contractor who installed the lights because he should have known they were not in compliance with the code and may be responsible for moving them. He said he would not support the motion. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Piceno informed the Applicant she is entitled to appeal the action and may do so by contacting the Planning Department. The Board recessed for a short break. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-30 REQUEST: A variance request by Habitat for Humanity Valley of the Sun to allow a five (5) foot and three (3) foot side setback where twenty (20) feet is the minimum required in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) Zoning District. The property is located at 6609 North 53rd Drive. Staff Contact: Charles Beck(Ocotillo District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He said the request appears to meet findings 1, 2 and 4, however, whether or not finding 3 is met is debatable. Boardmember Koehler said the supporting posts would be placed at a greater distance from the sideline and asked if it would provide ample room to get a car into the carport. Mr. Beck stated it would according to the site plan. Boardmember Drew said fire codes do not allow a building to be within one to one and a half feet of the property line. He asked if the three-foot measurement allows for the overhang as well. Mr. Beck said the intent of the stipulation was that the fascia not extend any closer to the property line than three feet. Boardmember Drew asked what implications approval of the request would have on future requests for a similar variance. Mr. Flaaen assured Boardmember Drew they would be within the fire code. In regards to future implications, he reminded the Board each application is supposed to be reviewed on its own merits to see if it meets the four findings. He acknowledged someone could argue a precedent was set if the variance is approved, however, each case has different circumstances and has to be evaluated individually. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 11 Boardmember Ransom noted the variance could be reduced by detaching the carport and placing it in the rear yard or by narrowing the width of the carport to eight feet. She said it was her understanding the carport was currently eight feet with a three-foot setback. Mr. Beck explained the dimensions of the carport, stating the net size of the carport would be approximately eight feet. Mr. Chris Wolf, 843 East Edgemont Avenue, Phoenix, said this property is unique in that it does not have rear alley access. He noted the house on the carport side of the property is set back significantly from the property line. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Wolf if the request for variance is because of this particular property or if it would become a common request. Mr. Wolf said a section of this one piece of property is in exception to the rest of the neighborhood in that it does not have rear access. He said there is only one other property in the area they can foresee purchasing that may result in a similar variance request. He explained they felt running the driveway into the backyard would be a waste of money and yard space as well as create an unsafe situation. In response to Boardmember Koehler's question, Mr. Wolf said they sited the carport to be on the north side of the property. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. Chairperson Piceno said the concerns expressed by Mr. Felix Sainz at the last meeting were addressed. He explained the neighborhood was noticed in Spanish and English and that a multiple family structure was not being proposed. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that the three-foot variance is only for the carport section of the property. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-30 subject to the following two stipulations: 1) Development shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plat dated October 16, 2000 and 2) The edge of the fascia of the carport shall not be less than three feet from the north property line. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Laureta expressed her opinion that all of the required findings were met, although she believes the carport could be built in another location at the rear of the lot. She agreed with Mr. Wolf, however, placing the carport at the rear of the lot would eliminate a lot of the yard area. Boardmember Ransom said she would support Habitat for Humanity's request. She suggested the City contact Mr. Sainz to inform him that his issues were addressed once again. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 12 Boardmember Drew agreed the four findings were met. He said the neighborhood needs single residence homes and it would be good for the City. Boardmember Koehler said all four findings were satisfactorily met and he would support the motion. Boardmember Gitelson agreed the findings were met and stated he would support the motion. Chairperson Piceno also agreed the findings were met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-02 REQUEST: A request by Sue Maya for a variance to reduce the required 15' rear setback to 3' 8" in an R-3 (Multiple Residence) PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning district, within Chaparral Ranch III Patio Home. The property is located at 10031 North 65th Lane, Glendale, Arizona. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Barrel District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request appears to meet findings 1 and 2. He said whether finding 3 is met is debatable and suggested finding 4 could be met by a patio cover, but would not be met by an enclosed room. Boardmember Drew asked if a screened patio would be classified as an enclosed room. Mr. Jacobs explained the stipulation is to prevent temporary or permanent enclosure of the patio. Ms. Sue Maya, 10031 North 65th Lane, Glendale, explained the builder offered a patio covering at the time they purchased their home fourteen years ago, but they could not afford to do so at that time. She said they were aware they needed clearance from the Homeowners Association for anything that was visible from the front of the home, but did not realize they would need the City's approval regardless of location. She said they have no intention of enclosing the patio. Boardmember Laureta asked if a contractor was employed when the patio was constructed. Ms. Maya said a friend's son built the covering. Boardmember Laureta asked what brought the issue to the Board. Ms. Maya said a complaint was registered approximately three months after the patio cover was constructed. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Maya if the Homeowners Association contacted her. Ms. Maya said she contacted them and they were not aware of the patio. She said she has since filled out a form and obtained their approval. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 13 Chairperson Piceno noted the City of Glendale does not maintain the streets in that neighborhood. Boardmember Ransom asked when the cover was constructed. Ms. Maya said it was approximately one and a half years ago. Boardmember Ransom asked for confirmation that the Homeowners Association approved the cover in August 2000. Ms. Maya said she sent notifications to the homeowners and the association at that time. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ms. Karen Bowden, 10035 North 65th Lane, Glendale, said she supports the request, explaining she lives in the house directly north of the Applicant's house. She said she has no problem with the patio structure as it was tastefully done . She noted the patio cannot be seen from her backyard. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Koehler asked who registered the initial complaint and if additional complaints have been received since notification was sent to the homeowners. Mr. Beck said he received one negative phone call, but it was not included in the report because they did not receive a letter. He said he was not aware of who initiated the complaint, but knew it was in response to the notification letter. Boardmember Ransom asked how the variance came to the Board. Mr. Jacobs said there was an original complaint to Code Enforcement. He said they believe that the individual who registered the complaint no longer lives in the neighborhood. Boardmember Laureta asked what the height is of the patio. Mr. Beck estimated it to be ten feet. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-02 subject to the following two stipulations: 1) The variance shall be limited to the existing patio cover as shown on the site plan dated August 26, 2000 and 2) The patio cover shall not be enclosed. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Koehler expressed his opinion all four findings were met. Boardmember Gitelson agreed the request met all four findings. Boardmember Drew said he would agree the findings were satisfactorily met, but asked that the record reflect the patio is to remain open, as pictured. Boardmember Ransom said she would support the request with staff's stipulations. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 14 Boardmember Laureta questioned whether finding 3 was met, stating it is not the minimum necessary. Chairperson Piceno said he is also concerned about finding 3, but would support the motion. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 1 (Boardmember Gitelson voted nay). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-19 REQUEST: A request by Ron and Jill Grim to allow lot coverage of 18% where 10% is required in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 6136 West Marconi Avenue, Glendale, Arizona. Staff contact: Charles Beck(Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the variance appears to meet all four of the required findings. Boardmember Koehler asked if a building already exists at the location and if the proposed garage would replace it. Mr. Beck said he was not aware of an existing building. Ms. Grim, the Applicant, explained they currently have rental storage units on the property. Ron and Jill Grim, 6136 West Marconi Avenue, Glendale, confirmed they have not constructed any buildings. She said they have upgraded the house during the past four years and will stucco the garage to match the house. She said their property is not zoned properly and, if it were, they would not have had to come before the Board. She noted that most of their neighbors also have structures on their property. She assured the Board they would meet all setback and height requirements. Boardmember Drew asked how they would get in and out of the garage. Ms. Grim explained they have a 25-foot space on the side of their house and would drive to the garage on the back northwest corner of the lot. She explained locating the garage at the back northwest corner of the property would allow them to turn their 18-foot trailer and 23-foot crew cab around to come out. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. No additional comments were made Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-19. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. No additional comments were made. November 9,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 15 Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Piceno noted the next Board of Adjustment meeting would be December 14. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. r %/ , � /i Linda Graham, Recording Secretary