Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 1/9/2003 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 9, 2003 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Douglas Ward, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Ward, Chairperson Tommie Beck Carl Dietzman, Vice-Chairperson Carol Marx Richard Schwartz George Giarrusso BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: David Iwanski CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, City Attorney Kate Langford, Acting Planning Manager Tabitha Perry, Associate Planner John Fukasawa, Associate Planner Sally Millward, Recording Secretary Chairperson Ward explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Ward called for approval of the December 12, 2002 minutes. Boardmember Dietzman made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the December 12, 2002 meeting. Boardmember Beck SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 6-0. Chairperson Ward called for Business from the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Ward asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Ward called for public hearing items. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-23 REQUEST: A request by Charles Lightner for a variance in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district to allow a 3-foot rear yard setback where 8 feet is the minimum allowed for an accessory structure. The property is located at 5235 West Escuda Drive. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Cholla District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. In response to Boardmember Giarrusso's question, Ms. Perry explained that the structure, "as is", is nine feet in height. She said the applicant intends to construct a roof on the structure resulting in an ultimate height of 12 feet. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the fence behind the residence is four or six feet high. Ms. Perry stated the fence measures 52 inches in height. Boardmember Giarrusso suggested adding height to the fence to help shield the structure from the adjacent property. Charles Lightner, applicant, explained that the City of Glendale dictated where his house would be built. He stated he originally had problems when he permitted the garage and ultimately lowered its height to appease his neighbor. He said he was told at that time that three feet was the minimum required distance between the wall and the gazebo. He stated, therefore, they built the gazebo approximately 42 inches from the wall. He said the inspector, Steve Goldsmith, checked to ensure the structure was legal and found no problems. He explained the problem arose when it was determined his accessory building required a setback. He stated he originally did not intend to place a roof on the structure, but changed his mind when it was determined he would have to obtain a variance anyway. Boardmember Giarrusso asked how the property is accessed. Mr. Lightner referred to photographs, explaining a 27-foot easement passes through the neighbor's property in front of his house. He also pointed out the location of the garage and gazebo on the photographs. Boardmember Schwartz told the applicant the roof creates a problem and asked if he would be willing to forego the roof and the wall in the back. Mr. Lightner asked if he could add a flat roof, eliminating the additional height. He explained the wall was built to provide privacy and offered to add additional height to the wall to further screen his gazebo. Boardmember Giarrusso asked who owns the wall. Mr. Lightner stated both he and his neighbor own the wall. Boardmember Beck asked Mr. Lightner if he has any documentation supporting his claim that he was told the structure had to be placed three feet from his house. Mr. Lightner responded no, stating, however, Steve Goldsmith was aware of the situation. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Rosalia Dihel, 19729 North 52nd Drive, explained she lives behind the applicant and opposes his request. She questioned whether the city, in fact, dictated the location of the applicant's house. She said the gazebo was built without permits and is less than three feet from the wall. She said she has no privacy or view and her property value has been negatively impacted. She stated the issue has also created tension in the neighborhood. She expressed concern about a possible fire hazard created by the gazebo's fire pit. Ms. Dihel confirmed for Boardmember Schwartz that they moved into their house 15 months ago and Mr. Lightner's house was not visible above the fence at that time. Boardmember Giarrusso asked what the setback is on Ms. Dihel's property. Mr. Jacobs said a principal residence in R1 zoning has a 20-foot rear setback, however an accessory building setback would be determined by the building height. Boardmember Giarrusso asked Ms. Dihel if she has visualized what the structure would look like if it were set back an additional five feet. Ms. Dihel agreed the structure's height and impact would be diminished. Mr. Lightner said he would add a roof if the structure had to be moved back eight feet, resulting in the same situation. Boardmember Schwartz asked Mr. Lightner when his house was constructed. Mr. Lightner stated they received their Certificate of Occupancy on August 1, 2001. He said the house was framed by mid-December, 2000. Mr. Jacobs clarified the required setback for the gazebo at its current height is five feet. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the City of Glendale would permit the applicant to increase the height of the existing fence by three feet. Mr. Jacobs said, while a variance could be granted to increase the height of the wall, any fence over 6 feet would have to be an engineered wall. He pointed out that a six-foot wall would still be considerably lower than the structure's height. He agreed the applicant and his neighbor could work together and propose a compromise. Mr. Jacobs confirmed for Chairperson Ward that the case could be continued and placed on next month's agenda. Boardmember Schwartz asked Ms. Dihel if she would be willing to discuss allowing the applicant to increase the height of the wall as a possible solution. Ms. Dihel said, had the applicant come to them prior to construction, she might have been more willing to discuss alternatives. She said everything on the applicant's property is pushed up against her property line, while the rest of his property is empty. She said increasing the wall's height will do nothing to improve her view and could make it worse. Boardmember Schwartz asked Ms. Dihel if she is aware that, if the applicant's request is denied, he could return home and move the structure back an additional three feet and increase its height without returning to the Board for approval. Ms. Dihel responded yes. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Mr. Lightner assured the Board that, if forced to move the gazebo, he will build a roof that will result in the structure being 18 or 19 feet tall. He said, conversely, he could leave the gazebo where it is and add a roof for a total height of less than 15 feet. He stated his neighbor's existing trees would help shield the structure from view and he offered to plant two 24-inch box trees to further reduce the structure's impact. Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Lightner if he believes he and his neighbor could work together to find an acceptable solution. Mr. Lightner reiterated his willingness to purchase trees. Chairperson Ward closed the public hearing. Boardmember Giarrusso expressed his opinion they should proceed with the case, stating Ms. Dihel has indicated she will not be satisfied with any alternative scenario presented. He said he is troubled by the claims that the city dictated the location of the home and informed the applicant that a permit was not required for the gazebo. Chairperson Ward stated, while he understands Boardmember Giarrusso's concern, the Board is not bound by errors made by the city. Boardmember Beck agreed the case should be continued to allow the applicant and his neighbors an opportunity to reach a compromised solution. Boardmember Schwartz made a MOTION to CONTINUE ZV-02-23 to the Board's February meeting. Boardmember Marx SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 5 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-24 REQUEST: A request by Scott Rhodes of Jennings Strouss representing Crosspoint Christian Church for height variances for the development of a church campus in the R1-10 (Single Residence, 10,000 square foot minimum parcel size) zoning district. The request includes: 1) a building height of 36 feet is proposed for Phases One, Two, and Four where 30 feet is the maximum building height allowed by Ordinance. These Phases directly abut the north side of Glendale Avenue and are the buildings to be used as the worship hall and Sunday school classrooms until the worship center is constructed. 2) A building height of 55 feet is proposed for Phase Three where 30 feet is the maximum building height allowed by Ordinance. Phase Three contains the worship center and is located toward the center of the site. The property is a 34.27-acre site and is located at the northwest corner of 85th Avenue and Glendale Avenue (8508 West Glendale Avenue). Staff Contact: Kate Langford (Yucca District). Ms. Langford presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Dietzman asked about the anticipated construction time frame. Ms. Langford said the project is a very long-term campus development with a 15 to 20 year build-out timeframe. Boardmember Dietzman asked Mr. Jacobs if the Board should be concerned about granting a variance for so far into the future. Mr. Jacobs said, while there is nothing that prevents the applicant from requesting the variance now, such a request is not typical to most cases. In response to Chairperson Ward's question, Ms. Langford said the main ingress/egress occurs on Glendale Avenue, however, there are several other points of ingress/egress as well. Commissioner Dietzman asked when 85th Avenue will be completed. Ms. Langford answered during Phase II. Scott Rhodes, the applicant's representative, introduced pastors from the church, as well as other members of their team. He said, after many months of hard work with city staff and a great deal of cooperation on their part, they are somewhat disappointed by staff's report. He expressed his opinion the report is incomplete and fails to give a whole picture of the project. He explained the project represents a turning point for the city, explaining it will be the first "mega church" project. He said they did not want to appear deceptive by withholding the fact that a 3,500 seat worship center is planned for the future, therefore the project was developed as a whole from the beginning. He said, upon city's request, they agreed to go to a R1-10 zoning with a conditional use permit allowing the church to be built. He pointed out they worked with city staff throughout the zoning process on all design aspects of the site. He stated their citizen participation report deliberately stated that a 3,500 seat worship center with a height of up to 55 January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 6 feet would be built during Phase III, requiring a height variance of up to 25 feet. He stated they sent a letter to 1,106 recipients wherein they once again stated the church would apply for height restriction variances for Phases I, II, III and IV, specifically a 25 foot height variance for the worship center during Phase III. He stated they held a citizen participation meeting in March, at which time they fully reviewed their plans for the worship center and the necessary height variance. He said, to his knowledge, there has been only one written response concerning the project, noting it was in favor of the project. He pointed out there was no mention of the height variance issue at the citizen participation meeting. He agreed their project does not fit perfectly with the city's current guidelines and classifications, noting staff has acknowledged the need to compile guidelines for large church projects of this sort and had asked them to halt work on the project in order to participate in that process. He said too much money, time, and effort had been .put into the project to halt its progress, however, they have offered to participate in the process once their project is completed. He said he is concerned that complying with staff's request to delay the project could subject their project to any new rules or regulations developed during the process and require them to start over again. He expressed his opinion the applicant is in full compliance with the city's ordinance and that the Board can make the necessary findings to approve their application for all three phases. With regard to Finding No. 1, Mr. Rhodes disagreed with staff's finding, noting staff's report does not mention all of the factors the Board is allowed to consider. He pointed out lowering the height would have required larger buildings, pushed back further towards the walls surrounding the proposed residential subdivision. He said representatives of the subdivision have expressed their appreciation for the applicant's proposed setbacks. He noted the Phase III worship center is 317 feet from the northern property line, 521 feet from the western property line, and 491 feet from the eastern property line. He stated the project includes a lot of buffering, including a retention basin and prayer garden. He said the SRP canal that currently runs through their property will be placed underground during Phase III. He explained the worship center cannot be moved further forward because it will impede SRP's ability to access their canal. He reiterated the applicant accepted the R1-10 zoning at the city's request, noting other classifications were available. He said their cooperation with the city, not the applicant, created the height restriction, therefore, he believes the finding can be made. Mr. Rhodes acknowledged their request differs from other requests received by the city, stating, however, that similar churches are being built throughout the valley. He pointed out the Glendale Church of the Nazarene has a 36 foot building height, noting they also requested a 60 foot spire and 30 foot cross height. He stated the applicant's project will be seen from a distance, down a gateway structure, with the other two buildings located in front. He commended the architects on creating a design that limits the building's height to 55 feet, while still accommodating 3,500 seats and the necessary audio/visual equipment. He stated Mountainridge Baptist Church has a steeple height of 45 feet and the First Southern Baptist Church of Glendale has a 45 foot building height. He noted their project has no steeple and the crosses are located lower to the ground. He said the Community Church of Joy has a 45 foot building height and a 65 foot spire height. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 7 Mr. Rhodes said staff's conclusion on Finding 3 concerns them the most because it demonstrates that they do not fully understand the functional nature of what the applicant is attempting to accomplish. He explained a worship center for 3,500 people, including video screens, appropriate acoustics, and a stage, cannot be done with a 30 foot height restriction. He said, therefore, staff's conclusion ignores the fact that the function of the worship center cannot be separated from the proposed design. He pointed out that staff's suggestion that the building be recessed further would locate the building closer to the residents and increasing its footprint would result in the loss of required parking spaces. He expressed his opinion the requested variance is the minimum necessary. With regard to Finding 4, Mr. Rhodes said staff appears to agree with the applicant, suggesting, however, the applicant does not know if there will be a detrimental effect. He reiterated that 1,100 letters were sent out and no concerns of detrimental effect have been made known. He said the applicant desires to be a good neighbor and they believe the design will welcome people to the campus. Mr. Rhodes explained churches are non-profit organizations that rely on their benefactors for funding. He stated they are ready to proceed with the construction of Phase I once they receive approval from the city. He estimated the construction of Phase II to begin five years later, Phase III five years after that, and Phase IV five years after that. Boardmember Beck asked to what area the letters were sent. Mr. Rhodes stated they were sent to the area required by Councilmember Clark, who expanded the area substantially by ordinance. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if any of the structures would contain basements. Mr. Rhodes responded no. Boardmember Giarrusso asked what is planned for the surrounding area. Ms. Langford explained there is a residential subdivision under construction with various residential zoning districts, existing residences on an A-1 parcel, vacant farm land, an existing mobile home park, existing A-1 to the east of the property and a commercial opportunity at 83rd Avenue and Glendale. Boardmember Schwartz asked if any part of the sanctuary would go below grade. Mr. Rhodes responded yes, explaining the worship center will go below grade, lowering the building height by five to six feet. Boardmember Schwartz asked if it could be lowered an additional ten feet. Mr. Hart, Todd & Associates, explained lowering the building further could result in accessibility issues and interfere with the sense of personal contact between the pastor and his congregation. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Barbara Garland, 5012 North 64th Drive, Glendale, stated she opposes the applicant's request. With regard to the applicant's claim that the additional height is required, in part, to accommodate refrigeration units, she pointed out the City of Glendale requires residential refrigeration units be located on the ground. She said the public participation meetings held by the applicant were a zoning function, not a variance function. She stated the General Plan January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 8 designates the subject area as medium-density residential, low-density residential, and some multi-family housing. She said the residential developments will not exceed 30 feet in height, with the majority closer to 15 feet in height. She stated the impact of the applicant's project, as proposed, would be too great and granting the variance would set a negative precedent for both established and developing neighborhoods. She expressed her opinion that denial of the variance would not subject the applicant to differential or unfair treatment, suggesting, rather, that granting the variance would, in fact, treat neighboring property owners unfairly. She stated there are no special circumstances related to the property, any hardship the owner is subjected to would be self-imposed, the owner is not being denied privileges enjoyed by other property owners, and granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the quality of life in the subject neighborhood. She asked the Board to deny the applicant's variance request. Mr. Rhodes explained refrigeration ground units (HVAC) for a building of the proposed size are extremely expensive, therefore, it is very common to use roof-mounted HVAC. He clarified there are no requirements in the Conditional Use Permit to locate the refrigeration units on the ground. He stated the size of the worship center is driven by the functionality of the space. He said the applicant has devoted substantial resources to reaching out to neighbors and the city and it would be unfair to ask them to wait until they are ready to proceed with Phase III to obtain the variance, subjecting them to the laws and requirements in effect at that time. Boardmember Giarrusso asked what the height of the multi-purpose stadium facility will be. Ms. Langford said the height of the hockey arena will be 100 feet, whereas the football stadium will be closer to 200 feet. She said, while there are special height allowances for properties adjacent to the Loop 101, they do not extend beyond 91St Avenue. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if any other buildings are being planned in that area that would require similar height variances. Ms. Langford responded no. Boardmember Schwartz asked about the height of the North Phoenix Baptist Church. Mr. Rhodes estimated it to be approximately 65 feet, seating 5,000 occupants. Mr. Jacobs stated the applicant's request is different from those previously considered by the Board because, while churches are traditionally located within residential neighborhoods, the proposed church is not a neighborhood scale facility. He stated the zoning ordinance did not envision this type of project, therefore the applicant had to work with the existing requirements. Boardmember Dietzman asked if the properties facing Glendale Avenue will all be C-2 in the future. Ms. Langford responded no. Chairperson Ward closed the public hearing. Boardmember Schwartz made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-24, subject to the stipulations contained in staff's report. Boardmember Giarrusso SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 9 Boardmember Schwartz said, given the height of the arena and stadium being developed in the area, he does not believe the proposed project will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Boardmember Marx said she is impressed with the amount of time and consideration given by the architects on this project and finds it to be aesthetically pleasing. Boardmember Dietzman stated the projected timeframe, not see the building's height, is the issue. Boardmember Giarrusso said he approves of the applicant's request. Boardmember Beck stated he has no problem with the building's proposed height. Chairperson Ward said, while Ms. Garland's comments have been noted, he will support the applicant's request. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. The meeting recessed for a short break. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-25 REQUEST: A request by Mr. Ronald Brown, representing First Southern Baptist Church, for a variance in the R1-7 (Single Residence) zoning district to allow a 60-foot building height for construction of a cross where 45 is the current maximum height allowed. The property is located at 10250 North 59th Avenue. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Barrel District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the applicant considered any other options with regard to the cross's location. Mr. Brown, the applicant's representative, explained Southern Baptist Churches are well known for a cross at the peak of the church. He said the cross will help distinguish their church from the adult center and improve its visibility from Peoria Avenue. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the cross was part of the applicant's original presentation, during which they requested a 45 foot height variance. Mr. Brown explained the height was limited to 45 feet and the applicant was told at that time to return for another variance for the cross as an additional feature. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 10 Chairperson Ward asked if any neighbors have voiced opposition to the applicant's request. Ms. Perry said they have received two phone calls opposing the application. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Boardmember Giarrusso made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-25, subject to the stipulations in staff's report. Boardmember Marx SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Board members Giarrusso, Beck, and Marx voiced their support of the application. Boardmember Schwartz expressed his opinion the applicant could place a larger cross at the entryway, negating the need for the proposed height variance. Chairperson Ward said he is troubled by the split variance, although he understands how the situation came about. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 1 (Boardmember Schwartz voted nay). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-02-27 REQUEST: A request by Bruce Daniels to allow 1) a temporary off- site sales sign on developed property where one sign is permitted per street frontage on undeveloped property, 2) center identification monument signs with eleven tenant names where three tenant names are allowed in the PAD (Planned Area Development) Zoning district, and 3) center identification signs of 67 square feet in area where 60 square feet is permitted. The property is located at 17241 North 75th Avenue, 17218 North 72nd Drive, and 17211 North 71st Drive. Staff Contact: John Fukasawa (Cholla District). Mr. Fukasawa presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Giarrusso asked when the 18 month time limit referenced in Stipulation 4 would commence. Mr. Jacobs explained the time limit would begin once the 15 day appeal period has ended. In response to Boardmember Dietzman's question, Mr. Fukasawa said the subdivision is allowed to have temporary on-site sales signs. January 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 11 Bruce Daniels, the applicant's representative, explained the city's current ordinance requires their temporary sign to be within 'h mile of undeveloped property, which is difficult to find. He said, therefore, Bruce Kettle, the owner of the parcels on 75th Avenue, offered to put their temporary signage on his property. He asked to have the 18 month time limit changed to require removal of the signs once 85 percent of the lots have been sold. Boardmember Beck agreed the property is hidden and needs signs to help direct people to the site. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Jacobs said, while it would be fine to modify Stipulation 4 to tie removal of the signs to a percentage of sales, he would prefer some type of time period be set forth also. Boardmember Schwartz made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-02-27, subject to the stipulations contained in staff's report and amending Stipulation 4 to require removal of the temporary signs once 85 percent of the lots have been sold or within 24 months, whichever occurs first. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 2 (Board members Schwartz and Ward voted nay). Chairperson Ward called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was given. Chairperson Ward called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Boardmember Schwartz asked to set aside 30 minutes prior to the next meeting to discuss voting procedures. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Sally 'i lward, Recording Secretary