Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 3/14/2002 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,MARCH 14,2002 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 Carl Dietzman Ron Piceno C. Douglas Ward Richard Schwartz BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Hector Castro Ann Ransom CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator John Fukasawa, Associate Planner Jim Flenner, Assistant City Attorney Kate Langford, Senior Planner Sally Millward, Recording Secretary Chairperson Drew explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Drew called for approval of the February 14, 2002 minutes. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the February 14, 2002 meeting. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 5-0. 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. Chairperson Drew called for public hearing items. March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-02 REQUEST: A request by Mr. and Mrs. Cooper to allow 20-foot side yard setbacks where 50 feet is required, a 40-foot front yard setback where 75 feet is required, and 25% lot coverage where 10% is allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 6418 West Pershing Avenue. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa (Sahuaro District). Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmembers had no questions of staff. Mrs. Lisa Cooper, applicant, stated she had no further information to add. Chairperson Drew opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ms. Robin Horga, 6626 West Sweetwater Road, stated she was in favor of the project. Vice- chairperson Ward asked Ms. Horga to identify her residence in relationship to the project. She indicated her home was the second house in on the north side of Sweetwater Road. Chairperson Drew asked for any other comments. As no one else requested to speak, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Piceno made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-02. Boardmember Schwartz 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 5 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-02-04 REQUEST: A request by Paul Lejman to allow a 23-foot side yard setback where 50 feet is required, a 40-foot front yard setback where 75 feet is required, 29% lot coverage where 10% is allowed, and accessory structure height of 22 feet where 20 feet is allowed in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The property is located at 6001 West Paradise Lane. Staff contact: John Fukasawa (Sahuaro District). March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Mr. John Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Vice-chair Ward asked him if the stated height request exceeded the A-1 residential standards. Mr. Fukasawa stated a maximum height of 20 feet is allowed under the zoning ordinance. The request is 2 feet over this. Mr. Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, further explained that in most R-1 zoning districts accessory building height is 15 feet. The A-1 and SR zoning districts require less setback distance and allows taller accessory building heights (20 feet) specifically for accessory structures such as barns. He also indicated the proposed building scale, design, and materials is an issue that will be addressed during the Design Review process. Mr. Lejman, applicant, approached the podium to answer questions. He informed the Board that he had purchased the property because he was led to believe he could build the desired structure. A past employee had assured him the added height could fall well within the standard 10% administrative relief allowed. Mr. Lejman also addressed the requirement in stipulation #2 that he be required to remove the shade structure within 30 days of the hearing. He said it is not cost effective nor prudent to remove it since shade is at a premium during the summer months. He also expressed confusion concerning stipulation #3 related to the front chain link fence being located in the public right-of-way. Board member Piceno asked Mr. Lejman if he took exception to stipulations 2 and 3 on the staff report. Mr. Lejman stated he did because no explanations had been given to him for requiring the removal of either the shade structure or the fence. Board member Piceno then asked the applicant if he considered the stipulations to be a "poison pill" for the variance. Mr. Lejman replied that he did not. Chair Drew asked the applicant what type of animals he currently had housed in the shade structure. Mr. Lejman replied he had none at the moment; his son was using it temporarily as storage until he moved into his planned residence. Chair Drew then asked what use he intended for the barn. Mr. Lejman said he planned to stable horses, the livestock's necessary materials, and a collection of antique wagons. Chairperson Drew asked for further details of the applicant's prior assurance of permission to build desired structure. Mr. Lejman stated a Ms. Anna Lopez, City of Glendale employee, had given him the information on the possible administrative 10% relief. Mr. Lejman said he was unaware of the current zoning until the home was purchased and also unaware of the variance procedure. Baordmember Schwartz stated that he also is a horse owner. He asked Mr. Lejman for reasoning behind requesting such a tall structure. Applicant Lejman stated he was concerned the horses would injure themselves if they reared and building was not tall enough. Boardmember Schwartz stated he is opposed to the 20 feet height as allowed. Chairperson Drew asked for the shade structure measurements. Applicant said it is currently 12' x 60'. The applicant indicated that no changes were done to the present structure. March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Board member Ward asked is there was currently a garage. Applicant replied that there was. Chairperson Drew pointed out that the site plan drawing is not proportionate. Mr. Lejman indicated that he could move the shade structure to behind the garage since staff had made that suggestion. Mr. Jacobs explained to the Board that this was an option put forth by staff since the lot coverage for the lot could be met. Chair Drew asked if the Code requirement would also be met if the shade structure was moved. Boardmember Dietzman pointed out that the shade structure is not flat. Chairperson Drew also pointed out that moving it would then involve more neighbors. Vice-chair Ward asked if the garage was non-conforming. Mr. Jacobs stated the structure setbacks are non-conforming, much like the residence is non-conforming. Vice-chair Ward then asked Mr. Lejman if he was willing to accept the stipulations as stated in the report. Mr. Lejman stated that he was not. He states that he will relocate the shade structure but he sees no reason to remove the fence. Assistant City Attorney Jim Flenner then stated that applicant could contact his office to begin the process for an easement to allow fence to remain on the public right-of-way. Mr. Jacobs said that since the height of the chain link fence is only 3 feet, it appears stipulation #2 is more significant at this time than stipulation#3. Boardmember Piceno asked applicant to clarify his stand on the "poison pill" status of the stipulations to the variance. He was getting conflicting positions from what the applicant had responded to his question and how applicant had responded to Boardmember Ward. Mr. Lejman again stated that he did not understand why the shade structure had to be removed. He would be willing to relocate it. Boardmember Piceno asked applicant if he would be willing to accept stipulation #2 if it could be restated to allow structure to be moved. Applicant stated he does not think it can meet the setback requirement. Mr. Piceno then asked if it would meet the requirement if the structure was moved behind the garage. Mr. Lejman sated it would be very close but he could work with the measurements and be near to meeting the requirement. Mr. Jacobs agreed that the applicant has some area to work with. Chairperson Drew asked if the barn and the house have the same setback requirements. Mr. Jacobs explained that the setback is related to structure height. Chairperson Drew then asked if the 28.9% lot coverage included everything. Mr. Jacobs said yes, it did. Boardmember Dietzman asked if the drive on the east side would remain as it is. Mr. Lejman replied that it would. March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Vice-chair Ward questioned Mr. Lejman about the commercial property (storage facility) that the shade structure backs up to. The applicant could not state specifically how tall the storage buildings were. Boardmember Schwartz questioned staff as to why the recommendation to remove the barn was made. Mr. Jacobs stated that the shade structure and the proposed building created a continuous structure from the property line. The addition of the new barn could minimize the need for the shade structure. Boardmember Schwartz asked if it was to break up the line so that it was not so overwhelming. Mr. Jacobs replied that the intent with any accessory structure is to maintain a residential character. Chairperson Drew asked for clarification on the front fence easement issue. Deputy City Attorney Flenner confirmed that if an easement award is granted, then the responsibility of dealing with stipulation#3 becomes a moot point for the Board. The applicant in his closing remarks stated that the 30-day time limit given by the City of Glendale in their letter was too short a time in which to move the shade structure due to personal difficulties on the applicant's part. Chair Drew asked if it would be acceptable to the applicant if the stipulation was reworded to allow the structure to be moved before the barn is built. Mr. Lejman said it was. Chairperson Drew asked for a motion on the issue. Boardmember Piceno MADE a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-04 as follows: Side yard setback of 23.4 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required, front yard setback of 40 feet where 75 feet is the minimum required, 28.9% lot coverage where 10% is the maximum allowed, the allowable accessory structure height to remain at 20 feet in height with the following stipulations: 1. The variance shall apply only to the attached site plan. 2. The existing shade structure on the east property line shall be removed and relocated prior to construction of the accessory structure. Vice-chairperson Ward SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Board Members Ward, Dietzman, and Schwartz voiced their agreement with motion as stated. Boardmember Dietzman asked staff if the total square footage of the barn would change if the shade structure was moved west of it. Mr. Jacobs replied it would remain the same. Boardmember Schwartz felt that the site was being crammed very tightly but could support the stipulation as worded. Boardmember Piceno said that a compromise wording of the stipulation will help in accepting it. March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Chairperson Drew expressed concern for a possible huge barn if the sides were enclosed at a future date. He also was concerned that the site does not have animals there at the present. He stated he could not support the measure. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 2. (Boardmembers Piceno, Ward, and Schwartz voted aye, and Boardmembers Dietzman and Drew voted nay.) Boardmember Piceno asked if Boardmember Ransom would be allowed to vote although she had entered late. Deputy City Attorney Flenner stated no. Vice-chair Ward asked if another motion could be made or if the hearing could be re-opened. Mr. Flenner stated no to both issues, the matter has been decided at this point. Mr. Flenner stated that applicant could return with a different application. Mr. Jacobs explained that a reconsideration can be considered if the stipulation was the cause for the opposition. It would require one of the prevailing negative votes to move for a reconsideration. He further explained that public notice of the hearing would be required so the earliest meeting date would be the April meeting. Boardmember DIETZMAN made a MOTION to RECONSIDER ZV-02-04 at the next meeting of the Board. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0. Chairperson Drew asked for a five minute recess. The Board reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Kate Langford, Senior Planner, and Rick Counts, Community Sciences Corporation, presented the PowerPoint presentation of Glendale 2025- the Next Step to the Board. All Board member questions and comments were answered and noted. Ms. Langford and Mr. Counts were thanked sincerely for their attention and time spent with the Board. Chairperson Drew called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Drew called for the Planning Staff Report. There was none. Chairperson Drew called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. r ' Sally r lward, Recording Secretary