Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 1/10/2002 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,JANUARY 10,2002 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 John Fukasawa, Associate Planner Jim Flenner, Deputy City Attorney Sally Millward, Recording Secretary Chairperson Drew explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Drew called for approval of the December 13, 2001 minutes. Vice-chairperson Ward made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the December 13, 2001 meeting. Boardmember Schwartz SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 7-0. Chairperson Drew called for Business from the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Drew asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. January 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Drew called for public hearing items. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-25 REQUEST: A request by Mr. and Mrs. Corupe to allow a 4'3" side setback where 10 feet is required in the R1-6 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. The property is located at 5477 West Potter Drive. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa (Cholla District). Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Chairperson Drew asked if the patio was an add-on. Mr. Fukasawa explained the patio was built with the house, however, it was later extended towards the lake. Boardmember Dietzman asked, when the original permit was granted, if it was noted that the spa cover on the site plan did not meet the setback. Mr. Jacobs stated it is unclear as to what was included in the submittal when the permit was granted. Ms. Ene Corupe, Applicant, 5477 West Potter Drive, explained the facts of their request. She said they decided to add a patio extension and cover for their hot tub located on the west side yard. She said they were informed by their HOA in June that a wooden gazebo was not permitted under their CC&R's and that any cover built would have to match the house. She said, in their opinion, the parapet roof style was less invasive, yet still matched the house. She said she understood that the spa cover was approved to be built to a maximum of three feet from the side property wall. She said their licensed contractor, A Touch of Shade, applied for and was granted a building permit from the City of Glendale. She stated Ms. Dooley, the complainant, was advised of their plans prior to construction and her only comment was that the backside of the waterfall should be finished for aesthetic purposes. She said the Glendale Building Inspector inspected and approved the footings, location, and framing during construction. She said, following the complaint, the City of Glendale indicated that, due to an error, the spa cover had not been crossed off the building permit. She said they were asked to remove the spa cover or to request a variance to build the cover. She characterized the structure as being attractive, open and airy, meeting or exceeding the HOA's requirements. Mr. Alan Corupe, Applicant, asked that their request be accommodated for the following reasons: 1) Special circumstances exist in that their property has surrounding residences with five foot setbacks; 2) Because of the special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district; 3) the variance is the minimum required to allow the hot tub cover to remain as constructed and approved; and 4) granting the variance would not have a detrimental affect on adjoining properties, the neighborhood or the city in general. He noted five of the nine homes from the Glendale recommended notification area attended their open house and indicated they have no issue with the spa cover and believe it should remain. He said three of those neighbors are present and two others, who were unable to attend, have written letters in support of their request. He pointed out the complainants did not attend the advertised January 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 3 community participation meeting at the site of the spa cover. He said, instead, they chose to file a letter with the City of Glendale. With regard to Mr. and Mrs. Dooley's concern regarding the spa cover's appearance, he stated the spa cover was designed to blend with their home and other homes in the neighborhood. In response to the Dooley's concern about fire hazard, Mr. Corupe stated the structure's setback exceeds that called for in the City's Fire Code. He said, based on prior approval of the structure, they have incurred in excess of$2,200 in costs for the preparation of the site and construction of the cover. Vice-chair Ward asked if the HOA's Architectural Committee made any mention of the side yard setback. Ms. Corupe said they approved the structure for up to three feet from the wall. Boardmember Ward asked why construction continued after the complaint was received. Ms. Corupe said it would have been difficult and much more expensive to get a stucco contractor to come back to stucco just the spa. Chairperson Drew asked the applicants when construction started and when the city informed them of the need for a variance. Ms. Corupe said construction began in mid—July, however, they do not know the exact date it commenced as they were out of town. Chairperson Drew asked if the City did not originally want the spa cover and, by mistake, granted approval. Ms. Corupe said they were told after construction began that the city had intended to strike the spa cover from the building permit. Boardmember Castro asked for clarification as to whether the city made an error. Mr. Corupe said the individual who gave the original approval no longer works for the city. He said they believed they had all of the necessary approvals prior to starting the project. Mr. Corupe explained that, pursuant to the HOA's requirements, they need to build a block wall in front of the hot tub prior to final inspection. In response to Boardmember Dietzman's question, Mr. Corupe said the wall would be approximately four feet high and would extend from the house to the first column. Chairperson Drew opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Mr. John Dooley, 5483 West Potter Drive, Glendale, said he contacted and met with Mr. Corupe after construction commenced and Mr. Corupe said he originally wanted a redwood gazebo, but was forced to build a stuccoed structure by the HOA. He said he and Mr. Corupe left that meeting with the understanding they would work together with the HOA to find a solution that would work for both of them. He stated he has not heard from Mr. Corupe since. Ms. Debora Dooley, 5483 West Potter Drive, Glendale, provided copies of pictures depicting the view from inside their home. She said they were told prior to leaving for vacation in June that the Corupe's intended to build a redwood gazebo. She stated, however, when they returned, construction of the structure had started. She said she contacted the HOA to find out if approval had been given for the structure and was told it could not have been approved because the HOA does not have authority to approve anything not first approved by the city. She stated she then called Bill Griffith at the City of Glendale who said two inspections had been done on the January 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 4 structure and, while approval was given, actual approval could not be given until a variance hearing was conducted. She said the City then went out and issued a stop work order, however, the Corupe's continued construction. She acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Corupe held a public meeting, however, her husband was unable to attend and she was uncomfortable attending by herself. She said, while the structure may look nice from the applicant's yard, no one has seen the structure from her vantage point. With regard to special circumstances, she stated the fact that each of the applicant's neighbors have five foot setbacks does not suggest special circumstances. She explained each resident in the zoning district must have a minimum of a five foot and ten foot setback, allowing for a 15-foot separation. She noted her home sits four feet from the property line, therefore, there is barely more than 10 feet between it and the applicant's spa cover. She disputed that denial of the request would deny the applicant's privileges afforded other property owners in the same zoning district. She said other residents would not be allowed to build a nine foot structure either. She stated the applicant has other, more reasonable locations for the spa. She said there is no substantial evidence of hardship, pointing out personal hardship and inconvenience do not justify a variance. She expressed her opinion that the structure would lower her home's value because of the obstructed view. She said approval would grant the applicant's special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties within the zoning district. She noted she and her husband had planned to build an addition onto their home, which would further reduce the amount of separation between their house and the Corupe's structure. Vice-chair Ward asked what is the distance between the corner of the spa and the corner of the Dooley house. Mr. Fukasawa said it is 12 feet as measured by Mr. Griffith. Boardmember Schwartz asked Mr. Jacobs if granting the variance would require the Dooley's to obtain a variance when proceeding with their addition. Mr. Jacobs stated no, the applicant's variance would not limit the Dooley's ability to build within their property's building envelope. Ms. Dooley said their biggest concern is the obstructed view caused by the structure. In response to Boardmember Ransom's question Ms. Dooley explained their future plans for adding onto their house. Boardmember Castro asked if the tree is located on the applicant's or Mr. and Mrs. Dooley's property. Ms. Dooley stated it is on the Corupe's property. Boardmember Castro asked if the tree also obstructs their view. Ms. Dooley stated it does not. She stressed the hot tub is a luxury item, not an addition necessitated by need. She said they were originally willing to work with the Corupe's to find a solution that would work for both of them. Boardmember Castro asked staff if there is an ordinance restricting the height of trees. Mr. Jacobs stated the city does not have any such ordinance, however the HOA might. Ms. Dooley said the tree that was originally where the spa is now located did not obstruct there view and was more pleasing to look at. Mr. Dooley explained the 11 foot height of the spa cover is their main issue, noting most spa covers are six to eight feet high. January 10, 2002, Board of Adjustment Page 5 In response to Chairperson Drew's question, Mr. Dooley said, the last week of July, they were told by Mr. Luttrell that the Corupe's were issued a stop work order. He said, however, the Corupe's continued construction. Mr. Corupe insisted their spa cover is the same height as the patio cover. He reiterated that the HOA does not allow redwood gazebos. Ms. Dooley clarified that construction started at the end of June and it was not until the second week in August that they received notice that a variance was needed. She stated a stop work order was never issued. Chairperson Drew closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Piceno asked if staff's recommendation includes construction of the small wall required by the HOA. Mr. Jacobs said the wall would not change the footprint of the site. Boardmember Ransom asked if the stipulations should include a limit on the installation of any kind of drop-down shades. Mr. Jacobs said such limitation could be included. Mr. Jacobs confirmed for Chairperson Drew that the wall would have no bearing on the city. Boardmember Castro asked Mr. and Mrs. Dooley if their planned addition would interfere with their view of the lake from the vantage points where the photos were taken. Ms. Dooley said it would not. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-25, subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Castro said Mr. and Mrs. Corupe made intelligent points, however, he would vote against the motion because, once built, the structure would be permanent. Boardmember Dietzman agreed with Boardmember Castro. Boardmember Piceno expressed his opinion that the special circumstance was unintended, but exists nonetheless. He said the applicant showed respect for and adherence to the HOA's requirements and constructed the cover in good faith. Boardmember Ransom expressed her opinion the complaint should be addressed by the HOA, not the city. She suggested the structure would be less intrusive once the Dooley's proceed with their addition. Vice-chair Ward said the homeowner has made every effort to tastefully cover his spa. He empathized with the Dooley's with regard to their obstructed view on the ground level of their home, stating, however, he believes the findings have been met. January 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Boardmember Schwartz said he does not believe there are any special circumstances or that denying the request would deny the applicant a use that other property owners in the area are afforded. Chairperson Drew said he does not believe findings 1 and 2 were met or that there is any hardship. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 4 (Board members Castro,Dietzman, Schwartz, 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. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-26 REQUEST: A request by Motivational Systems Inc. for Engle Homes to allow: 1) a temporary 30.25 square foot off-site subdivision directional sign on developed property and 2) an additional 15 square feet of temporary on-site subdivision advertising signage. The property is located at 1) 7111 West Bell Road and 2) 16544 North 71st Avenue. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa (Cholla District). Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Dietzman asked if the existing large sign and the two new signs would be an aggregate total. Mr. Fukasawa explained the total square footage would include all onsite signs. Vice-chairperson Ward asked what is the square footage of the existing sign. Mr. Fukasawa stated, while he is not sure of its square footage, the area is included in the 160 square feet. He stated the onsite sign puts them over the maximum allowable square footage. Vice-chair Ward asked if the property is city or privately owned. Mr. Fukasawa stated the requested site is private property. In response to Chairperson Drew's question, Mr. Jacobs stated they measure one side of the sign. Chairperson Drew asked about the height of the sign on Bell Road. Mr. Jacobs said a 15 foot height is allowed. Ms. Cathy Riser, Applicant's representative, said it is difficult to bring traffic off Bell Road. She said the onsite 8x12 sign is set back and difficult to see from Bell Road. She explained Engel Homes' sales are lower than most of the other subdivisions they run and they are asking for the sign to help increase traffic to the site. January 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 7 In response to Vice-chairperson Ward's question, Ms. Riser stated the sign would be best read from the east, but would be visible to traffic heading west as well. She confirmed they have a lease agreement with B&M. Mr. Jacobs clarified that the 15 foot height limit was in reference to the onsite maximum height. He stated the offsite maximum height is 8 feet. Chairperson Drew asked if the Commission should stipulate that the signs are not over 4 or 8 feet from grade. Mr. Jacobs stated those limitations are already included in Stipulation 3. Mr. Castro asked about the aesthetic characteristics of the sign. Ms. Riser said the signs would be standard Engel Homes signs. Chairperson Drew opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Jacobs pointed out the city created a hardship situation because of the Greenway Road situation. Vice-chairperson Ward made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-26, subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report. Boardmember Castro SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. 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. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-01-27 REQUEST: A request by Ken O'Dell for Roderick Self to allow a 0 foot side setback where 15 feet is required in the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning district. The property is located at 7917 North 68th Avenue. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa(Ocotillo District). Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Castro asked how much the applicant would have to reduce the area of the proposed building to conform. Mr. Fukasawa explained a building could be built within the existing building envelope. Mr. Jacobs stated the issue before the Commission is whether the requested variance is reasonable. January 10,2002 Board of Adjustment Page 8 Chairperson Drew asked why landscaping was not addressed. Mr. Fukasawa explained landscaping would be addressed during Design Review. Mr. Jacobs stated the minimum landscaping requirements would be met. Mr. Ken O'Dell, P.O. Box 2223, Pine, Arizona, Applicant's architect, said they are in full agreement with staff's findings. He stated they have developed a design review package, including landscaping. Chairperson Drew asked about the height of the wall along 68th Avenue. Mr. O'Dell said the wall would be three or four feet high and used to screen the parking lot. Chairperson Drew asked why the building was placed on the north property line rather than the south property line. Mr. O'Dell said the location was chosen for security reasons. 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. 1 Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-01-27, subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report. Vice-chairperson Ward SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Vice-chairperson Ward commended the city for working with businesses to utilize properties to their fullest extent. Board members Piceno and Drew agreed with Vice-chair Ward. 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. Chairperson Drew called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Drew called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Boardmember Ransom said she is glad the City now provides training for Homeowner Associations. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. --- diSally ward, Recording Secretary