Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 3/8/2001 • 4 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2001 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: Hector Castro Daniel Drew Robert Koehler Gayle Laureta Ron Piceno, Chairperson Ann Ransom Doug Ward BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, Acting Deputy City Attorney Ricardo Toris, Senior Planner Charles Beck, Associate Planner Linda Graham, Recording Secretary Chairperson Piceno explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Minor modifications were noted for the minutes from the December 14, 2000 meeting. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the December 14, 2000 meeting as amended. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 7-0. 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. March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 2 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. Chairperson Piceno called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-33 REQUEST: A request by Nicolae and Robin Horga to allow a side setback of 21 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required, a front setback of 13 feet where 75 feet is the minimum required, and a lot coverage of 25% where 10% is the maximum allowed in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 6626 West Sweetwater Ave. Staff contact: Charles Beck(Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He said the side yard setback and lot coverage requests meet all four findings. He stated the front yard setback request meets findings one and two, finding three is debatable with finding four not being met. Boardmember Drew asked why the applicant is looking for a 21 foot side setback. Mr. Beck explained the Applicant is building eight feet onto the east side. Boardmember Koehler asked what front line was used to establish the front setback. Mr. Beck stated they used the property line drawn from the right-of-way line. He confirmed the road sits inside the right-of-way and the road could be extended 7.5 feet in the future. Mr. Toris clarified that the 13.5 feet, which is the applicant's request, is measured from the property line. All setbacks are measured from the property lines. He stated the additional 7.5 feet seen on the site plan is within the city's right-of-way and is measured to the back of the sidewalk. Ms. Robin Horga, 6626 West Sweetwater Avenue, explained the land coverage of the home totals 3,600 square feet, including a 600 square foot guest home and garage and a 1,500 square foot covered patio. She said they are left with a living space of approximately 1,500 square feet. She stated they believe the addition would increase property values in the neighborhood. She explained the addition cannot be placed in the back of the home because of their swimming pool and because they want to maintain a large backyard for their children's sake and to accommodate their animals. She explained they want to add on an additional bedroom and bathroom, increasing the home to approximately 2,500 square feet. She said the covered parking area could be foregone if found to be a problem. She said the plans sent by the city to their neighbors were very deceiving in that it lead them to believe the house would be 13 feet from the sidewalk. She said, in fact, they have an additional 14 feet of right-of-way that they maintain. She stated if they had the covered parking area, the living space would actually be 45 feet from the back of the sidewalk. She expressed her disappointment in her community suggesting her neighbors should have come to them with their concerns and questions. • March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Boardmember Ransom asked how deep is the back patio. Ms. Horga estimated it to be approximately 12 feet. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ms. Kim Horga, 13214 North 62nd Drive, said the Applicant's home currently is very small and is not aesthetically pleasing. She said the addition would make the home much nicer. She stressed that the addition would not be as close to the sidewalk as many neighbors believe. Mr. Craig McAllister, 6950 West Laurel Lane, explained he drew the plans and offered to answer questions. Boardmember Castro asked if the trees would need to be removed. Mr. McAllister said, regardless of the addition, the trees are too close to the house and would have to be cut down, noting they are too large to move. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. McAllister to respond to staff's statement that finding 4 was not met. Mr. McAllister explained the curve in the road makes it difficult in terms of planning. He said the initial setbacks for the parcel came from the county. Mr. Steven McAllister, 6328 West Sweetwater, stated he is concerned about the 13 foot setback from the sidewalk because it would be inappropriate for the neighborhood. He agreed the house needs to be remodeled, noting he does not have any problem with the side setbacks. Ms. Rodica Bartels, 6239 West Windrose Drive, expressed her opinion the Applicant's house is the ugliest one in the neighborhood. She explained the house was built in 1965 and has that period's style. She said adding on to the back of the house would do nothing to improve the aesthetics of the house. She stated adding on to the front of the house would greatly improve the value of that property and other properties in the neighborhood. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Bartels if she sees any other way to modify the property. Ms. Bartels said she does not because there is no room to add on to the side or the back of the house. Mr. Jim McAllister, former Councilmember, 6402 West Sweetwater, stated he is concerned about the addition because no other homes in the area sit as close to the road. He said the neighborhood, though originally zoned in the county for agriculture, no longer accommodates animals due to increased traffic and development. He questioned how the neighborhood would be served by allowing the Applicant to be so close to the street. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. McAllister if he has any objection to the side coverage. Mr. McAllister stated he does not. Mr. Craig McAllister explained that the 20 foot setback is to the closest part of the curve. March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Boardmember Drew asked if the 20 foot setback runs along the same line down the entire street. Mr. McAllister stated it does not. Mr. Toris said setbacks are measured from the property line, which is the edge of the right-of-way, not necessarily the edge of the sidewalk or pavement. He said the property lines for the entire subdivision are fairly consistent with the distance from the property line to the sidewalks varying somewhat due to variation in the street angles and pavement widths. Boardmember Ward asked what is the average front setback for other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Craig McAllister referred to a photograph of the property to the south of the Applicant's parcel, noting it is basically the same lot and has the same restrictions. Mr. Jim McAllister estimated the average front setback to be approximately 60 feet. Ms. Horga said she measured the front yards of several neighbors on Surry and Sweetwater and found the setbacks ranged from 26 feet to 45 feet. She explained for Boardmember Koehler that her measurements were to the lot side of the sidewalk. Mr. Toris pointed out the subdivision to the south is a different zoning category and was platted at a different time. Mr. Jim McAllister said the house across the street has a large overhang and that the actual house is further back from the street. He explained Sweetwater has a large setback because they knew it would be a major street and they wanted the houses kept back from the traffic. He said he does not object to a porch or other overhang that comes closer to the street, but he does object to having the actual house any closer. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of the case. Chairperson Piceno called for the Applicant's closing remarks. Ms. Horga clarified for Boardmember Castro that they intend to remove the three trees that sit next to their house. She stated the two large trees near the street would be kept and would not be interfered with by the covered parking. She emphasized the reason for adding on to the house is to give them additional living space. She disagreed with Mr. McAllister's claim that people in the neighborhood no longer have farm animals on their property. She implied that Mr. McAllister might have unfair influence over this case because of his position in the city. Chairperson Piceno asked Ms. Horga if all three parts of her request need to be approved for her to go forward. Ms. Horga said the parking structure can be taken out, but the additional living space is necessary. Boardmember Laureta noted the proposed addition would only increase the lot coverage to 16.59 percent and asked why the Applicant is asking for lot coverage of 25 percent. Ms. Horga confirmed they do not want to build any additional structures or do any kind of business on the property. She explained they asked for 25 percent based on advice she received from her •March,8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 5 neighbors. Boardmember Laureta asked Ms. Horga if she would be willing to accept a setback provision of 30 feet. Ms. Horga said she would. The Applicant made no further comments. Boardmember Drew said he sees various options that would allow the Applicant to obtain 1,699 square feet without having to add on to the front of the house. He asked why they are not looking at enclosing the breezeway or enclosing the back patio. Ms. Horga said the kitchen is along the back side of the house and a patio is necessary to gain access to the backyard. Boardmember Laureta made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-33. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Ward stated he would not support the motion because he believes the house would be too close to the street, impacting other homes in the neighborhood. Boardmember Castro said he would support the motion if the Applicant agreed not to build the covered parking structure. Boardmember Koehler said the photographs show other homes in the area are closer to the street than the suggested 60 feet. He stated extending within 13 feet of their property line is excessive, but he would support an amendment making it a 30 foot setback and modifying the lot coverage to 20 percent. He said he has no problem with the 21 foot side setback. Boardmember Drew stated he cannot support the request as written, noting no other property in the subdivision has less than a 40 foot setback. He expressed his opinion other options are available for adding onto the house. Boardmember Ransom agreed the Applicant should be able to enclose and use at least a portion of the internal patio area. She said, however, she would support a motion with a 30 foot setback and 20 percent lot coverage. Boardmember Laureta stated the proposed request does not meet the four required findings and suggested the Applicant modify and resubmit their application. Chairperson Piceno said he cannot support the request for a 13-foot front setback. In response to Ms. Horga's previous comments, Chairperson Piceno assured Ms. Horga that former Councilmember McAllister's opinion is given no more weight than any other citizen. He stated he does not believe the request meets finding 4. Boardmember Koehler noted zoning on the property prior to the city's annexation of the area, called for a 25-foot setback. Boardmember Drew pointed out the property changed ownership in March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 6 August, 2000, and the existing zoning was in place when purchased. Boardmember Koehler expressed his opinion the zoning does not reflect the use, size or configuration of the properties. Boardmember Castro made an AMENDED MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-33 removing the covered parking structure, changing the front setback to 30 feet and reducing lot coverage to 20 percent. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The AMENDED MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 4 (Board members Laureta,Drew, Koehler and Piceno voted nay). Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote on the original MOTION. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 0 to 7 with all Board members voting nay. Chairperson Piceno informed the Applicant she is entitled to appeal the action and may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days of the date of this action. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-35 REQUEST: A request by Dan Davis to allow a side setback of 8 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required, a front setback of 48 feet where 75 feet is the minimum required, and lot coverage of 15% where 10% is the maximum allowed in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 5135 West Tierra Buena Lane. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He said the request appears to meet findings 1, 2 and 3, however, whether or not finding 4 is met is debatable. Mr. Dan Davis, 5135 West Tierra Buena, apologized for not first obtaining the proper permits, explaining he did not realize they were necessary given the number of similar units in the neighborhood. He said he has cooperated with staff and has agreed to reduce the overall height of the structure by three feet. He referred to a notarized form from his neighbor to the east indicating his full support of the request. He noted his structure has been engineered and stamped by an engineer. He said he would like to keep the structure on the east side of the property, but he is willing to work with design review if other changes are necessary. Boardmember Drew asked how far above the home's roofline the structure would extend. Mr. Davis estimated it to extend an additional 8 to 12 inches. He explained the structure's roof would be two feet above the top of his motor home, allowing adequate circulation for the motor home to be used while under cover. Boardmember Drew asked if the roofline would lean toward the east for water drainage. Mr. Davis said that is his intention, but he would be willing to change the plan if design review so requested. Boardmember Drew asked if the sides of the structure would be enclosed. Mr. Davis said the sides would come down approximately six feet to provide shading. March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 7 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. Boardmember Laureta asked why the Applicant needs a permit when the requested front setback is three feet less than the setback for the existing house. Mr. Beck explained that the structure is treated as an extension to the primary structure because it is attached to the house. Mr. Jacobs explained the 45 foot setback for the existing house is a legal non-conforming setback and the variance needs to be established to accommodate the new structure's setback. Boardmember Drew asked if the structure could ultimately become part of the house. Mr. Jacobs stated the Board could stipulate that the structure not be enclosed. Mr. Davis said he would not have any problem with that stipulation. Boardmember Drew explained placing a variance on the property affects what future owners of the property are allowed to do. Chairperson Piceno mentioned a similar site variance granted in 1997 and asked Mr. Beck if there was something specific to that request that is not found in the Applicant's request. Mr. Beck explained the purpose of the 1997 variance was to accommodate a garage on the side of the house and was subject to three stipulations: 1) the setback variance shall apply only to the first 120 feet of the west side yard; 2) the existing garage shall be removed within six months; and 3) the new garage shall be constructed to match the architecture, materials and color of the house. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-35 subject to the following stipulations: 1) that the side setback of 8 feet be limited to a depth of 95 feet from the lot line as per site plan submitted, 2) that the elevation of the structure not exceed 14 feet and 3) that the side covering extend down from the roofline no further than eight feet from ground level. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Castro asked if there are development standards regarding the height of a structure. Mr. Beck said A-1 District has a height restriction of no more than 30 feet. All Board members indicated they would support the motion with the proposed stipulations. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Piceno stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days. March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment Page 8 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-36 REQUEST: A request by Loren and Virginia Mann to allow side setbacks of 38 feet and 24 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 5826 West Mercer Lane. 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. Mr. Loren Mann, 6458 West Mariposa, explained they hope to build their retirement home on the lot, however the 50 foot zoning requirements make that impossible. He noted the 24 foot setbacks would maintain a distance of approximately 110 feet to the house to the east. He said they proposed putting a six foot block wall between their property and the property to the west. He stated they have no problem with the 75 foot front and rear setbacks. 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. Boardmember Ransom made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-36. Boardmember Ward SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. All Board members expressed their opinion the request meets the required findings. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Piceno stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days. The Board recessed for a short break. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-37 REQUEST: A request by James Klein, representing First Southern Baptist Church, for a Variance in the R1-7 (Single Residence) zoning district to allow a 45-foot building height where 30 feet is the maximum height allowed. The 14.8-acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Brown Street. The property address is 10250 North 59th Avenue. Staff contact: Ricardo Toris (Barrel District). March 8, 2001 J Board of Adjustment Page 9 Mr. Torts presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request appears to meet findings 2, 3 and 4, however, whether finding 1 is met is debatable. He suggested that, should the Board determine the request meets the required findings, approval be subject to the stipulation contained in the staff report. In response to Boardmember Drew's question, Mr. Torts stated the property was rezoned from A-1 to R1-7 in September and a public hearing was held at that time. He confirmed the Al and R1-7 zoning categories both have a maximum height of 30 feet. Boardmember Ward asked what is the height of the library. Mr. Torts replied the highest peak of the library measures 39 feet 7 inches. Mr. Torts confirmed for Boardmember Drew that any cross or other adornment added to the top of the building would have to fall within the 45 foot height maximum. 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. Mr. James Klein, Architect, reviewed the Applicant's site plan. He explained the height of the building is dictated by function in terms of acoustics, lines of site, and so forth. He noted the tallest building has been placed as far from the residential neighborhood as possible. Mr. Klein confirmed for Boardmember Drew that the Applicant has no problem with the city's proposed stipulations. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-37 subject to the following stipulation: 1) The building height of 45 feet is limited to the sanctuary building. All other buildings must meet the standard 30 foot height limit. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Board members Ward, Castro, Koehler, Drew and Ransom indicated they would support the request. Boardmember Laureta questioned whether findings 1 and 4 were met. Chairperson Piceno agreed whether finding 1 was met is debatable, stating, however, he would support the motion. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Piceno stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days. March 8, 2001 -Board of Adjustment Page 10 Chairperson Piceno called for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Jacobs welcomed Boardmember Ward. Mr. Jacobs stated the next Board meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2001. Chairperson Piceno called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Chairperson Piceno also welcomed Boardmember Ward. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Ii Linda Graham, Recording Secretary