Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 4/11/2002 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,APRIL 11, 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 Ann Ransom Richard Schwartz C. Douglas Ward, Vice-Chairperson BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Piceno CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen, City Attorney Tabitha Perry, Associate Planner John Fukasawa, Associate Planner Sally Millward, Recording Secretary Chairperson Drew explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Drew called for approval of the March 14, 2002 minutes. Vice-chairperson Ward made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the March 14, 2002 meeting. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Ms. Ransom asked that the minutes be modified to reflect she was not present for Board actions but was in the audience for part of the meeting. The motion PASSED by a vote of 6-0. Chairperson Drew called for Business from the Floor. There was none. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Drew asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Drew called for public hearing items. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-01 REQUEST: A request by Todd Henkels to allow a rear accessory structure setback of 18 inches where 5 feet is the minimum required. The property is zoned R1-6 PRD (Single Residential, Planned Residential Development) and is located within the Arrrowhead Ranch II Subdivision. The property is located at 19322 North 68th Avenue. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Cholla District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Vice-chair Ward asked if the building ordinance allows enclosure of the pagoda. Mr. Jacobs explained the structure could be enclosed unless otherwise stipulated. Chairperson Drew asked if the structure would be self or contractor built. Ms. Perry deferred the question to the applicant. In response to Vice-chair Ward's question, Ms. Perry stated the Board could stipulate that the applicant cannot enclose the structure. Boardmember Dietzman asked about the structure's roof. Mr. Henkels confirmed for Chairperson Drew that construction would be contracted out because the pillars need to be load bearing. He said the roof is intended to be a decorative feature and would be open. Chairperson Drew asked Mr. Henkels if he performed the construction work that has already been started. Mr. Henkels said the pool was contracted out and has been completed. He stated the pillar supports were constructed as part of the pool. He noted the pedestals required special engineering to support an above ground feature as well as the pillars. 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. Vice-chair Ward made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-01, subject to a stipulation that the structure will not be enclosed at any time, either during construction or in the future. Boardmember Schwartz SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Boardmember Ransom asked why contracting companies are not better educated on the city's restrictions. Chairperson Drew agreed the construction company should have known the city's zoning ordinances and laws. He stated he is also troubled by the fact that the Planning Division again approved a plan that was against their own zoning laws. He said he believes the problem was self-imposed, therefore he would vote against the motion. No further comments were made. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 1 (Chairperson 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-02-04 REQUEST: The Board of Adjustment will reconsider a request by Paul Lejman to allow a 23-foot side yard setback where 50 feet is required, a 22-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 Board of Adjustment originally heard this request on March 14, 2002. The property is located at 6001 West Paradise Lane. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa (Sahuaro District). Mr. Jacobs stated, while the stipulations were included when the case was heard last month, he should have discussed the rationale behind them in greater detail. He explained the City receives a number of requests for accessory buildings that are larger than the primary residence in size and scale. He said their goal is to maintain the residential character of a neighborhood. Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. In response to Boardmember Ransom's question, Mr. Fukasawa explained the dashed line represents the setbacks the barn would need to meet. Mr. Jacobs said the garage would stay where it is. Chairperson Drew asked when the photograph of the property was taken. Mr. Fukasawa answered February 1999. Chairperson Drew asked if the property has been given any other variances. Mr. Fukasawa responded no. Chairperson Drew pointed out the aerial photo does not depict a garage and asked if it is a legal structure. Mr. Fukasawa stated it probably is not. Chairperson Drew asked if the 29 percent coverage would include the garage. Mr. Jacobs stated it would include everything proposed for the site. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Mr. Lejman, applicant, said the two additional feet of building height would stair-step down from the two-story commercial building next door. He said the structure would blend in and would barely be visible from the street. He stated he also wanted to match the roof of the structure to the house, both in trim and pitch. He said the garage existed when he purchased the home. With regard to the front fence, Mr. Lejman stated he contacted Mr. Flenner on two occasions concerning the site survey, and was told he could apply for a waiver. He said he also contacted Mr. Flenner about the commercial property encroaching on his property, but has not heard back as yet. Vice-chair Ward asked if the shade structure would be removed. Mr. Lejman stated he has agreed to relocate the shade structure to the east side of the property. He said Planning Staff's wording that the structure would be removed should be changed to say it would be relocated. Vice-chair Ward asked if the barn would fit on the property if the shade structure remains in place. Mr. Lejman responded, yes. Vice-chair Ward asked how the garage would be accessed if the barn was constructed. Mr. Lejman said there would be a driveway on the north side with gates on both sides. Vice-chair Ward asked what is the height of the garage. Mr. Lejman estimated the height of the garage to be 14 feet. Chairperson Drew asked if the barn height would be 22 feet. Mr. Lejman stated a height of 20 feet would be acceptable, explaining he would change the pitch of the roof. Chairperson Drew asked if the front fence issue would be resolved prior to construction of the barn. Mr. Lejman said staff indicated there would be no problem getting the waiver. Chairperson Drew asked Mr. Lejman if he would agree to completely remove the shade structure. Mr. Lejman said it was agreed to at the last meeting that he would relocate the structure. He confirmed he wants the shade structure. Chairperson Drew asked Mr. Lejman when he moved into the house. Mr. Lejman stated October 1999. 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. Mr. Jacobs reiterated the applicant's desire to keep the shade structure, noting it is made of sectional material and, therefore, could be split and located in two different places. Boardmember Schwartz asked if there is adequate room to shift the barn behind the house. Mr. Jacobs responded yes, stating it is the applicant's preference to move it closer to the house. Mr. Jacobs confirmed for Chairperson Drew that the Board has the authority to situate the barn on the site plan. Boardmember Ransom pointed out the site plan drawing refers to a 20-foot peak. Mr. Jacobs explained the applicant is permitted a 20-foot peak under the ordinance. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Boardmember Ransom made a MOTION to CONSIDER ZV-02-04, subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report and as presented and referenced by the drawing dated March 19, 2002. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Ransom AMENDED her MOTION to CONSIDER ZV-02-04, subject to the following stipulations: 1) a side yard setback of 23.4 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required; 2) a front yard setback of 22 feet where 75 feet is the minimum required; 3) 28.9 percent lot coverage where 10 percent is the maximum allowed; 4) that the barn be positioned as sketched dated March 19, 2002 with a maximum height of 20 feet; 5) the shade structure must be removed or relocated to within the confines of the building envelope shown on the March 19, 2002 site plan prior to construction of the accessory structure; and 6) the chain link fence located parallel to Paradise Lane shall be relocated if it is located in the public right-of-way,unless an easement is granted by the city. Vice-chair Ward SECONDED the AMENDED MOTION. Chairperson Drew opened the floor to discussion. Vice-chair Ward said the property is adjacent to a commercial property and within a neighborhood where similar structures have been constructed. He said the structure will not detract from the neighborhood, noting no neighbors appeared to speak in opposition to the request. He said, therefore, he would support the motion. Boardmember Dietzman asked if the shade structure could be attached to the barn. Mr. Jacobs answered yes. Boardmember Schwartz said he does not see a better location for the shade structure. He expressed his opinion the barn should be moved behind the existing garage and the shade structure should be left in place, stating it would provide for more open area. He said he is amenable to the 20 foot height limitation. Chairperson Drew said, while he does not have a problem with the barn's position, he believes the shade structure should either remain in its current location or be removed entirely. He stated he does not want to see the shade structure placed up against the barn, suggesting a certain distance between the two structures be included in the stipulations. Chairperson Drew made an AMENDED MOTION modifying Stipulation 5 to read: "The shade structure must be removed." Boardmember Schwartz SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote on the Motion to Amend the original Motion. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2 to 4 (Board members Castro, Ward, Schwartz, and Ransom voted nay). Vice-chair Ward made an AMENDED MOTION modifying Stipulation 5 to read: "The shade structure shall remain in its current location and will be separated from the barn by at least eight feet." The AMENDED MOTION FAILED due to lack of a second. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 6 The Board discussed optional locations for the barn. Mr. Flaaen noted the applicant is willing to relocate the shade structure south of the existing garage, but not attached to the garage or the proposed barn structure. Chairperson Drew called Mr. Lejman back to the podium to answer additional questions. Mr. Lejman said he would like to move the shade structure directly behind the garage, noting he could shorten the structure if necessary. Chairperson Drew asked what is the height of the house. Mr. Jacobs answered 14 feet. The Board continued discussing possible locations for both the barn and the shade structure. Boardmember Schwartz made an AMENDED MOTION modifying Stipulation 4 to read: "The west boundary of the proposed barn shall be no further east than 10 feet from the east boundary of the existing garage" and modifying Stipulation 5 to read: "The shade structure shall remain in its current location." Boardmember Castro SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote on the Motion to Amend the original Motion. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 3 (Board members Drew, Ward, and Ransom voted nay). Vice-chair Ward made an AMENDED MOTION modifying Stipulation 4 to read: "The proposed barn will be located no more than 10 feet south of the existing garage, no more than 23.4 feet from the east property line, no less than eight feet from the west property line, and no less than 16 feet from the south property line" and modifying Stipulation 5 to read: "The shade structure shall remain in its current location." The AMENDED MOTION FAILED due to lack of a second. Mr. Flaaen recommended the Board consider the original Amended Motion. Chairperson Drew called for a Roll Call Vote on the original Amended Motion. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3 to 3 (Board members Drew, Ward, and Dietzman 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. There was none. Chairperson Drew called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Drew called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Page 7 As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Sally llward,Recording Secretary