Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 10/11/2001 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson, Dan Drew, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Drew, Chairperson Hector Castro Carl Dietzman Ron Piceno Ann Ransom Richard Schwartz Douglas Ward, Vice-Chairperson BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner,Deputy City Attorney Tabitha Perry, Associate Planner Sally Millward, Recording Secretary Chairperson Drew explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Drew called for approval of the September 13, 2001 minutes. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the September 13, 2001 meeting. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Ward asked that page five be modified to reflect that he, not Chairperson Drew, called for Board member comments. Upon a call for the question, the motion PASSED by a vote of 7-0. Chairperson Drew called for Business from the Floor. There was none. October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Drew asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Mr. Jacobs asked, on behalf of the Applicant, that Case No. ZV-01-18 be heard first. Chairperson Drew agreed to the request to hear case ZV-01-18 first. Chairperson Drew 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 Drew called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-18 REQUEST: A request by Steven Bauer of Development Strategies Inc. representing Victoria Properties for a variance in the C-O (Commercial Office) sign standards to allow 270 square feet of building mounted sign area where 72 square feet is permitted for three individual buildings located in the Arrowhead Business Center office complex. The site is a 4.8-acre parcel located at 7025, 7055, and 7075 West Bell Road. Staff Contact: Tracy Stevens (Cholla District). Mr. Jacobs, on behalf of Tracy Stevens, presented the application, reviewing the site and request. In response to Boardmember Piceno's question, Mr. Jacobs explained that tenant names were superimposed on the elevation to show what they would look like. Boardmember Piceno asked if the variance would extend to subsequent business owners. Mr. Jacobs said the variance runs with the property. Mr. Steve Bauer, applicant's representative, stated their sign package is greater than C-O allows, but is much less than commercial and industrial district sign standards permit. He said they would adhere to specific criteria, including a size limit on each sign of 40 square feet. He stressed that the signage would have a non-retail, office type character. He briefly discussed the unique location and surroundings of the property, stating it meets the requirement of special circumstances. He admitted that not all C-O buildings deserve to have additional signage considerations, stating the Board should take into account the character of a given area to detemuine if it is in the best interest of the tenants and traveling public. He said, in their case, that test is met. He expressed his opinion that their request is appropriate and would not be detrimental to the area. He noted they sent out at least 350 notices to the surrounding neighborhoods, but did not receive any response. He stressed that the applicant has no desire or intent to sign the south side of the building. He said if their request is not approved, their tenants would have trouble with customers identifying the building and accessing the site. Boardmember Ward asked Mr. Bauer to elaborate on his statement that they were originally granted a variance. Mr. Bauer explained that the applicant's architect submitted their design October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 3 review package, including the sign package, and was given approval. He said it was not until after the credit union signs were put up that they were informed an error was made. Boardmember Ward asked Mr. Bauer if the applicant has considered asking for a zoning change. Mr. Bauer said they have discussed that possibility and believe it is an option, however, it could be difficult to have the property rezoned as C-2. Chairperson Drew opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Mr. Bill Davis, 4730 West Northern Avenue, #3077, Glendale, commended the Board members for their service to the citizens of Glendale. He said the applicant's current tenants would not have agreed to lease their office space had they known they would not be allowed the larger signs. He expressed his opinion that because the sign package was previously approved, even if the previous approval was given by mistake, the applicant's request should be granted. Chairperson Drew closed the public hearing portion of the case. Mr. Jacobs admitted that the credit union sign on an adjacent parcel was approved by mistake. He said the issue of signs on the back of the buildings is prohibited by the ordinance and is not relevant to the applicant's request. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-18. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Ransom acknowledged that the city made a mistake with their initial approval, stating, however, it is not a good idea to fix a mistake by making another one. She agreed Bell Road is unique, stating, however, she does not support the larger signs. She said the use of a directory board would eliminate the need for larger signs. Boardmember Piceno agreed with Boardmember Ransom and with staff's conclusion that the findings have not been met. He said increased signage would be a nuisance to passers-by and would increase vehicular problems on Bell Road. He pointed out that C-O signage is supposed to be subdued, stating, therefore, he would not support the variance request. Boardmember Ward stated he, too, does not believe the findings were met, therefore, he would not support the applicant's request. Boardmember Dietzman stated he cannot support the request either. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 0 to 7 (Board Members Ward, Piceno, Dietzman, Schwartz, Castro, Ransom and Drew voted nay). October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Chairperson Drew stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days of the date of this action. Chairperson Drew changed the agenda order due to the number of speaker cards submitted on Case ZV-01-14. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-19 REQUEST: A request by Cecilia Gonzales to approve a variance to allow side yard setbacks of 10 feet where 15 feet is the minimum required. The property is zoned R-2 (Single Residence) and is located within the Catlin Court Subdivision. The property is located at 5534 West State Avenue. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Ocotillo District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Mr. Joe Gonzales, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairperson Drew asked Mr. Gonzales if this would be his personal residence. Mr. Gonzales said he is not sure at this point. Chairperson Drew 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 Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-19. Boardmember Ward SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Board Members Ward, Piceno, Castro, and Drew voiced their agreement with staff's conclusion that the request meets all four findings.. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Drew stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days of the date of this action. October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 5 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-14 REQUEST: A request by Tommy Kleyensteuber to approve a variance to allow a front yard fence with a height of 4 feet where 3 feet is the maximum permitted. The property is zoned SR-30 (Suburban Residence) and is located within the Quail Thunderbird Meadows III Subdivision. The property is located at 6359 West Redfield Road. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Sahuaro District). Ms. Perry presented the application,reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Dietzman stated for the record that, while investigating this request, he had a conversation with the applicant. Boardmember Piceno asked Ms. Perry if the four conditions for the license have been met. Ms. Perry stated she instructed the applicant to wait in regards to the requirement to move the fence behind the water meter until after the Board's decision. Boardmember Piceno asked if the requirement to obtain a Certificate of Insurance with the city listed as an additional insured has been met. Ms. Perry referred the question to the applicant. Mr. Tommy Kleyensteuber passed out documentation listing eight incidences of vandalism that occurred on his property in 13 months, stating he believes it supports his claim that the fence was installed to protect against crime. He noted they have only had one problem during the ten months since the fence was erected. In regards to moving the fence to allow access to the water meter, Mr. Kleyensteuber provided a copy of American Fence Company's plan to relocate the fence. He also submitted a copy of his State Farm insurance documentation indicating the City of Glendale is fully insured. He acknowledged he has not signed the license agreement Mr. Broyles requested, stating, however, he does not have a problem being responsible for relocating the fence should the city decide to utilize its right-of-way. In response to concerns about his holiday decorations, he passed around photographs of decorations used throughout the year. He noted three other homes in the area have higher fences. He said he was mistakenly told by the Planning and Zoning Department that his fence could be built. Boardmember Piceno asked if the fence posts are pointed. Mr. Kleyensteuber explained they are "pinched", explaining he was told it makes a better psychological deterrent. Boardmember Piceno asked if a three foot fence would have been sufficient to deter vandalism. Mr. Kleyensteuber stated he can straddle a three-foot high fence, therefore, it would be easy for vandals to enter the property. Boardmember Piceno asked if the fence could be cut down to three feet in height. Mr. Kleyensteuber said he would take the fence down rather than reduce it in height. Boardmember Ward asked if American Fence Company counseled him that the fence height would exceed the zoning standards. Mr. Kleyensteuber stated they did not. October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Boardmember Dietzman asked Mr. Kleyensteuber if he was aware the fence would be on the city's right-of-way prior to its erection. Mr. Kleyensteuber stated he was. He said he was told by the city that if he installed the fence, he would be responsible for relocating the fence should the city need use of its right-of-way. Boardmember Dietzman asked if his neighbor to the west has had security problems as well. Mr. Kleyensteuber stated they have not, however, he was told by the police after their only vandalism occurrence since the installation of the fence, that the vandals used the neighbors three foot fence to get over his fence. Chairperson Drew asked who in the Planning Department authorized the fence to be built at a four foot height. Mr. Kleyensteuber said it was either Steve Dudley or Jeff Licuanan. He said it was the same individual who conducted the inspections when their house was built. Chairperson Drew asked Mr. Kleyensteuber when he became aware of the city's three foot height limitation. Mr. Kleyensteuber said he first became aware of the limitation in January. He said, at that point, the fence had been up for approximately three weeks. Mr. Flenner said the Certificate of Insurance does not name the city as an additional insured and should be corrected if the variance is granted. Chairperson Drew opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Mr. Steve Rituper, 6404 West Redfield Road, Glendale, said he lives across the street from the applicant's property and he neither supports nor opposes the request. He said the issue really comes down to a disagreement among the neighbors over Mr. Kleyensteuber's excessive use of holiday decorations. He stated there is little vandalism in the neighborhood and a fence would do little to protect Mr. Kleyensteuber from the types of crimes that do occur. He said the number of incidences concerning vandalism decreased because Mr. Kleyensteuber took his lights down, not because the fence went up. He recommended the Board table the issue, suggesting Mr. Kleyensteuber and the neighbors could reach a compromise. Boardmember Castro asked Mr. Rituper and Mr. Kleyensteuber how long they have lived in their homes. Mr. Rituper stated 11 years and Mr. Kleyensteuber responded two years. Boardmember Castro questioned Mr. Rituper on his statement that there is not a lot of crime in the neighborhood. Mr. Rituper stated, in his opinion, Mr. Kleyensteuber's holiday decorations attracted vandals to his yard. Ms. Leslie Chesser, 6351 West Redfield Road, Glendale, stated she has lived next door to the applicant for seven years and supports their request. She said too many people today are not willing to maintain or improve their properties and that those who want to should be allowed to do so. Isabel Arecedes, 6419 West Evans Drive, Glendale, expressed her opinion the fence is not harmonious with the neighborhood. She suggested approving the applicant's request would be the beginning of inconsistency in building codes throughout the neighborhood. She submitted a petition in opposition to the request signed by several residents in the neighborhood. She October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 7 admitted her house was robbed after they first moved in, stating, however, they have not had any problems since installing a security system. In response to Boardmember Piceno's question, Ms. Arecedes pointed her house out on the map. Boardmember Piceno asked Ms. Arecedes if she would have a problem with the same type of fence if it were limited to three feet in height. Ms. Arecedes expressed her opinion the fence is inconsistent with the style and decor of the neighborhood. Ms. Gayle Gadus, 6412 West Redfield Road, Glendale, referred to a letter she submitted to the Board. She said she would like the fence limited to three feet and set back from the sidewalk. Mr. Dan Madore, 6520 West Evans Drive, Glendale, said he has safety concerns regarding the location of the fence. He said he would be amenable to a three-foot fence if it were set back away from the sidewalk. He agreed the applicant's vandalism problem was due to the number of decorations. Mr. Frank Baker, 6519 West Evans Drive, Glendale, stated he opposes the applicant's request. Mr. Ed Martin, 6528 West Evans Drive, Glendale, acknowledged Mr. Kleyensteuber's property has been vandalized, but questioned whether any robberies have occurred. He expressed his opinion Mr. Kleyensteuber is responsible for the vandalism his decorations attract. He said a cement fence would be appropriate, however, he believes the points at the top of the current fence could cause serious injury. He stressed that code requirements should be enforced. Mr. Steve Thompson, 6351 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, stated there have been four criminal incidences at his house in the 14 years he has lived there. He asked the Board to enforce the city codes, noting the neighborhood does not have a Homeowner's Association. He suggested American Fence Company should be responsible for the Applicant's financial loss, if any, because they should have been aware of the city's codes. He agreed the applicant's decorations invite vandalism. He pointed out the applicant could be held liable if someone was hurt on the fence. He submitted a petition in opposition to the request. Mr. Kleyensteuber noted some of the thefts were committed during August and September, a time when they had no decorations displayed. Chairperson Drew closed the public hearing portion of the case. Mr. Jacobs explained the applicant may have been given wrong information by members of the Building Safety Department and cautioned future applicants to speak directly with the Planning Department before proceeding with any type of construction. Boardmember Ward asked how the fence ended up being built in the city's right-of-way. Mr. Jacobs said American Fence should have known it was building in the city's right-of-way and should have further researched the issue with the city before erecting the fence. October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 8 Boardmember Castro asked if the fence setback meets with city code. Mr. Jacobs stated it does not, explaining the fence was built four feet into the public right-of-way. Chairperson Drew asked how they should deal with the other properties mentioned by the Applicant as having fences that exceed the city's height limitations. Mr. Jacobs said Code Compliance operates on a complaint basis and, if called, would respond. He stated the Board should treat it simply as information. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-14. Boardmember Schwartz SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schwartz said he is concerned about the fence being located up against the sidewalk. He stated he cannot support the applicant's request because it would not be a hardship for the applicant to erect an appropriate fence. Boardmember Dietzman said the fence is too close to the sidewalk and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Boardmember Ward stated the request does not meet any of the four findings, therefore, he cannot support the request. Boardmember Piceno said he is troubled by the location of the fence in relation to the sidewalk and believes the points on the fence could be hazardous. Boardmember Ransom said the fence could be dangerous to passers-by, therefore she could not support the request. Chairperson Drew expressed his opinion that the proximity of the fence to the sidewalk magnifies its height. He suggested the applicant move the fence back four feet, lessening its impact. He stated he will not support the request. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION failed by a vote of 0 to 7 (Board Members Ward, Piceno, Dietzman, Schwartz, Castro, Ransom, and Drew voted nay). Chairperson Drew stated anyone wishing to appeal the Board's decision on this item may do so by contacting the Planning Department within 15 calendar days of the date of this action. Chairperson Drew called for Other Business. Mr. Jacobs reported the next meeting is scheduled for November 8. October 11,2001 Board of Adjustment Page 9 Chairperson Drew called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Drew called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Boardmember Piceno stated he would be out of town and unable to attend the November 8 meeting. In response to Chairperson Drew's question, Mr. Flenner said the City Attorney has determined motions should always be Motions to Approve. He said in the case of an Amended Motion, both the Motion to Amend and the Amended Motion need to be voted on. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. • // i` Sally 'llward, Recording Secretary Y