Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 7/10/2003 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE • GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,JULY 10, 2003 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 p.m. by Vice-Chairperson Carl Dietzman, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Dietzman, Vice-Chairperson George Giarrusso David Iwanski Carol Marx Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Ward, Chairperson Tommie Beck CITY STAFF: Jon M. Froke, Planning Director Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, City Attorney Bo Martinez, Planner Terry Johnson, Traffic Engineer Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Vice-Chairperson Dietzman explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for approval of the April 10, 2003 Regular Meeting minutes and the June 12, 2003 Workshop minutes. Boardmember Marx made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the April 10, 2003 meeting and June 12, 2003 workshop. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 5-0. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for Business from the Floor. There was none. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 2 • Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for public hearing items. APPLICATION NO.: VAR-03-11 REQUEST: A request by Los Vecinos Housing Development, Inc. to reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 13 feet in the R-3 (Multiple-Residence) zoning district. The 9,038 square foot parcel is located approximately 110 feet south of the southeast corner of 61st Avenue and Ocotillo Road (6711 North 61st Avenue). Staff Contact: Bo Martinez (Ocotillo District). Mr. Martinez presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Giarrusso noted that there was no date on the site plan. Mr. Martinez clarified that the site plan was dated June 13 and is so noted on the official copy. Boardmember Schroth asked if the applicant was planning on including pop-outs on the side of the residence within the five-foot setback. Mr. Martinez deferred to the applicant to answer the question. Mike Fitz, applicant's representative, stated the applicant did plan to enhance the home with pop- outs. Mr. Jacobs clarified that the ordinance would not allow the pop-outs on the side of the home with the five-foot setback. Boardmember Schroth asked if the alley on the east would afford access to the property. Mr. Fitz answered that it would. They plan to install a block fence with a double gate. Boardmember Iwanski noted a letter of support received from the Orchard Glen Neighborhood Group. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR-03-11 as recommended by staff. Boardmember Marx SECONDED the MOTION. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Marx stated her support for the request, specifically because it fills a currently vacant lot. July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Boardmember Giarrusso commented that the home would be an asset to the community and he supported the request. No further comments were made. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: APP-03-01 REQUEST: A request by John Moshier on behalf of Viacom Outdoor Advertising to appeal a decision by the Planning Director regarding billboards at various locations on Grand Avenue Expressway. The Planning Director's decision is based on Section 7.106 B Billboards. Staff Contact: Ray Jacobs (Citywide). Mr. Jacobs presented appeal APP-03-01, reviewing the case specifics and the required findings for considering an appeal of an interpretation by the Planning Director. Mr. Flenner made a motion that the item be continued to the Board's September meeting when attendance by the full Board of Adjustment is anticipated. Mr. Marty Aronson, representing the applicant, objected to a continuance. He stated that he did not believe a staff's motion to continue, with a quorum present, was good cause for a continuance. The applicant had asked for the earliest possible hearing and this was that date. He was not made aware that the staff would move to continue and was not sure the motion was proper under the city's rules and procedures. From the point of view of his client, Viacom Outdoor Advertising, the permits for the billboards should have been issued in January, as allowed by the City of Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The delay in issuing the permits represents lost revenue to Viacom of approximately $5,700 per month. He suggested these are damages to which Viacom is entitled to seek recovery from the city. However, if permits are granted as a result of the interpretation appeal, he presented that Viacom would waive any right to damages. He stated that Grand Avenue is the most logical place in the City of Glendale for billboards and they have been there for a substantial amount of time. The billboards represent replacements for those removed in cooperation with ADOT which is not willing to pay just compensation for the billboards. Based on a properly constituted quorum at a properly constituted hearing, Mr. Aronson requested that the Board proceed with a hearing on the merits of the appeal and a decision to be made at this meeting. Mr. Flenner stated that there would be no damages involved with continuing this case. He added that Viacom removed the billboards between September 11 and October 24, 2002 and waited 2.5 to 4 months to apply for the permits. The permit applications were made on January 16, 2003 and returned on February 4. The applicant then waited nearly two months to request an opinion. The opinion was provided on April 15, 2003 and the applicant waited another month to apply for an appeal. He suggested these timelines negated the applicants concern for revenue loss. July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Mr. Aronson responded that the delays that took place related to the attempts to work things out with the Planning Department and City Attorney. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for direction from the Board on whether or not to continue the appeal until September. At the request of Boardmember Iwanski, Mr. Flenner reiterated two primary reasons for recommending a continuance. This is an extremely important issue to Glendale and the Board's rules and procedures require an affirmative vote of four members. With there being only five Boardmembers present, a three/two split vote would result in a non-decision. Mr. Flenner noted that the Board would not likely have a quorum in August. Boardmember Iwanski explained to the applicant's representative that the Board's rules specifically address the motion made by Mr. Flenner. He asked if the applicant felt he was placed at some disadvantage by not having these rules or if the delay itself is the applicant's primary concern. Mr. Aronson stated that both issues are of concern. He felt it was inappropriate for staff to pre judge whether there might be a split or what that split might be. He noted that his office had requested a copy of any rules that pertained to the hearing and they were not provided. Based upon the importance of time, he requested the Board hear the case at this meeting. Boardmember Giarrusso expressed concern that there was no guarantee the Board would have seven members present in September. He suggested hearing the case at this meeting. Boardmember Schroth concurred with Boardmember Giarrusso. Boardmember Iwanski made a MOTION to CONTINUE APP-03-01, as recommended by staff. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. Upon a call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2 to 3. Vice-chair Dietzman then opened the hearing for this case. Mr. Flenner presented his opening statement, reciting the text of the ordinance governing this issue 7.106B. The director's decision declared that because Grand Avenue is a planned and existing expressway, Viacom's billboards could not be relocated within 660 feet of the road. He planned to present testimony that would allow the Board to make its finding. The billboards that were removed by ADOT's condemnation were nonconforming uses and not required to conform with the city's ordinance until such time as they were removed. Mr. Aronson presented his opening statement. He thanked the Board for considering his appeal. He stated that Grand Avenue is the most compatible area in the city of Glendale for billboards and there have been a significant number of billboards along Grand Avenue for decades. Viacom removed a number of its billboards with the intention of replacing them under the city's replacement ordinance. The term expressway is not defined in Glendale's ordinance, and to the extent there is any ambiguity in this understanding the case law in Arizona, is quite clear that July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 5 such ambiguity is construed in favor of the property owner. He suggested it violates common sense to consider Grand Avenue an expressway because of the multiple curb cuts and access points, as there will be after the ADOT improvements to the route. There are multiple street and stop light intersections along the route. Because expressway and freeway are undefined terms in Glendale's ordinance, the city is obligated to give the benefit of the doubt to the property owner. Mr. Flenner outlined the procedures of the hearing for this item. Mr. Froke was sworn in to testify. He stated his name and position as Planning Director for the City of Glendale. He explained that he had prepared a report regarding the Grand Avenue Expressway. He briefly recapped the appeal. ADOT acquired several properties within the Grand Avenue Corridor, resulting in the removal of several billboards owned by Viacom Outdoor Advertising. He recapped the timeline of the removal of the billboards and the applicant's request to relocate them. The applicant requested that three billboards be relocated within 15 feet of Grand Avenue and two billboards 22 feet from Grand Avenue. Community Development Group staff returned the permit applications indicating that the city's ordinance would not allow the billboards within 660 feet of the Grand Avenue Expressway. The applicant then requested an interpretation of Section 7.106 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically asking that Viacom be allowed to construct new billboards based on three alternative grounds: 1) Grand Avenue is not an expressway, 2) Grand Avenue was not an existing or planned expressway at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and 3) that Glendale's General Plan designation of Grand Avenue as an expressway was not effective until after Viacom removed the billboards. They also made: reference to grandfathered rights relative to Grand Avenue. Mr. Froke's interpretation, sent to the applicant on April 15, 2003, reiterated the city's previous statements regarding Grand Avenue's history of being an expressway in the city of Glendale. The City of Glendale's Zoning Ordnance is based on various city actions and may or may not be related to any comment or action by ADOT. On May 14, 2003, Viacom submitted a request for an appeal of the Planning Director's decision. Mr. Froke pointed out that the appeal has been focused on the adoption of one of the city's original general plans. Maps were distributed which depicted Grand Avenue's designation as an expressway in effect for nearly 14 years. Since that time, numerous policies and improvements of the Grand Avenue corridor have been based on the designation of Grand Avenue as an expressway. A map from the General Plan adopted in 2002 was presented and reinforced the city's commitment to improve the Grand Avenue Expressway to better serve the community— basically carrying out a policy adopted in 1989 into the General Plan Glendale 2025. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance implements the policies of the General Plan. The ordinance language being considered was established recognizing that cities take different approaches to transportation. The ordinance language was adapted to meet the objective of reflecting the alternatives and the extended time periods that may be related to transportation corridors from a long-range planning standpoint. The language in the city's adopted policies relates to language including planned or existing expressways, right-of-way, or planned corridor as designated by ADOT or the City of Glendale. The design of Grand Avenue as a planned expressway has been documented numerous times over the last 14 years and serves as a regional facility connecting July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Glendale to other Valley communities. The expressway development is a result of many years of planning and, now, implementation actions. Mr. Froke explained that most billboards in the Grand Avenue corridor are nonconforming due to their location within close proximity of the facility's right-of-way. Replacement of billboards after voluntary removal must be done consistent with all ordinance provisions. There has been significant new development and redevelopment along Grand Avenue in Glendale and examples were outlined, demonstrating the private and public sector commitment to converting Grand Avenue further into an expressway. Mr. Froke reviewed the staff recommendation that the Board of Adjustment conduct a public hearing on the appeal and affirm the Planning Director's decision relative to this matter. Mr. Randall Beck, Project Manager with the URS Corporation, was sworn in to testify. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for questions to Mr. Froke from the Board before moving onto Mr. Beck's testimony. Boardmember Giarrusso asked which side of Grand Avenue the billboards were removed from. Mr. Froke answered they were removed from both sides. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if ADOT communicated with Glendale about the removal of the billboards. Mr. Froke answered that he was not aware of any communication. He stated he was not sure ADOT ever submitted to Glendale a request for relocation or reconstruction of the billboards in question. Boardmember Schroth asked the date of the first Grand Avenue Expressway exhibit provided. Mr. Froke answered it was included in the 1989 General Plan. Mr. Beck confirmed that URS was engaged by the City of Glendale as the general engineering consultant for the Glendale On-Board Project. He provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Glendale Go Project as it relates to the Grand Avenue Expressway. His presentation consisted of a historical look at the development of Grand Avenue as an expressway, plans for future development of Grand Avenue as an expressway, and the significant resource commitments to that goal. Mr. Beck reviewed in detail the planned improvements to each Grand Avenue intersection in Glendale. He emphasized that Grand Avenue has been adopted as an expressway in the City of Glendale and Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) transportation plans. It is a regional facility with limited access, and there are committed and proposed funds that will further enhance Grand Avenue's expressway facilities. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if any of the funding was from federal sources. Mr. Beck stated that there is the potential for federal funding. He verified that federal funding has very specific requirements to which the City of Glendale would have to adhere. He said he was unaware of any reference in the documents to advertising. Boardmember Giarrusso asked about enhancements to the south side of Grand Avenue, parallel to the railroad tracks. Mr. Beck verified there are beautification enhancements planned for the July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 7 southwest side of Grand Avenue for the area between the railroad and Grand Avenue. He provided examples of those improvements. Mr. Aronson said;he had no questions of Mr. Beck. Boardmember Iwanski asked if ADOT classifies, reclassifies, or de-classifies projects depending on the availability of funds or changing political priorities. Mr. Beck stated his belief that ADOT never re-classified the corridor. They simply removed it from their freeway program due to funding shortfalls. Boardmember Iwanski asked if ADOT participated in Glendale's 1987 general planning process or subsequent general planning processes. Mr. Froke did not recall specifically the role ADOT played in the 1989 General Plan, a three-year planning effort. In terms of the Glendale 2025 General Plan, MAG member agencies were provided with documentation in 2001 and 2002. Mr. Beck stated that ADOT is a stakeholder in the Grand Avenue Design Concept Study currently underway and there has been a tremendous amount of coordination between Glendale and ADOT. In response to a question by Boardmember Giarrusso, Mr. Beck stated he is responsible for coordination with ADOT on the Grand Avenue Design Concept Study and has met with them regularly on matters related to Grand Avenue. After brief discussion about whether Mr. Aronson should be sworn to testify, Mr. Aronson was sworn in to testify. He provided an overview of Viacom's work with ADOT in seeking billboard relocations. He has been directly involved and is an expert in the matter. He stated that ADOT does.not want to pay just compensation for billboards that it believes should be replaced. That is.their policy on Grand Avenue, I-10, and in other areas. The department made a policy decision that there are limited dollars available to build highways in the state and they do not want to pay just compensation for billboards. They have estimated the just compensation payment for the billboards removed in this case in excess of $500,000. Viacom has estimated the just compensation at over $1 million. He reminded the board of the revenue losses to date and the fact that there is no definition in the Glendale Zoning Ordinance for the word expressway. Neither is there a definition of the word expressway by ADOT or the State of Arizona. Grand Avenue is a state route under the jurisdiction of the state and ADOT. It is designated by ADOT as a state route, not as a freeway or an expressway. There is not one state route in Arizona designated as an expressway. He claimed that this fact makes the ordinance, at best, ambiguous. Mr. Aronson stated that Grand Avenue is essentially an arterial street. He reviewed the number of access points, intersections and stop light intersections along Grand Avenue in Glendale. Boardmember Giarrusso asked how the potential relocation/reconstruction of the billboards would be affected by the Grand Avenue beautification process. He asked if ADOT requested that Viacom remove the billboards. Mr. Aronson confirmed that Viacom requested relocation July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 8 permits according to the ordinance. ADOT encouraged Viacom to do so. ADOT wants billboards relocated, as they have in a number of other locations along freeways, when there are condemnation cases pending in lieu of payment of just compensation. He verified that Viacom has a master easement with the railroad and has many billboards across the country and in Arizona on railroad right-of-way property. He further verified that he has documentation from ADOT related to the removal and replacement of the billboards. Mr. Aronson provided the Board with an overview of the procedural status of the condemnation cases related to Grand Avenue. ADOT has not acquired the property upon which the billboards are located. They have filed condemnation cases. The acquisition occurs after there is a final judgment in a condemnation case entered by the court and just compensation has been paid to the property owner. This is true for all seven of the billboards removed. In response to comments by Boardmember Giarrusso, Mr. Aronson stated that the property on which Viacom is seeking to reconstruct the billboards is railroad owned. Viacom has a valid easement with the railroad to construct the billboards. Mr. Aronson returned to his testimony responding to the information presented on studies and proposals by MAG. He reiterated the fact that ADOT abandoned Grand Avenue as a freeway. There are studies that consider Grand Avenue as a freeway in the future, but that has not been adopted. He again noted that there is no such thing as an ADOT designation of an expressway. Boardmember Schroth asked what would be a standard ordinance or zoning requirement for constructing a billboard within a city limit. Mr. Aronson stated that all of the spacing and zoning requirements have been met in what the applicant is requesting. He suggested the only issue is whether Grand Avenue is an expressway. Mr. Aronson presented a cover letter and ten exhibits to be made part of the official record. He noted that the cover letter was basically his opening remarks, and he reviewed the exhibits in detail. They included: 1) the five applications for the billboards at the new sites; 2) the proof of the seven billboards along Grand Avenue that were removed and are the subject of the five applications for replacement; 3) the easement with the railroad that gives Viacom the right to place the billboards in the new locations; 4) ADOT web page; 5) photographs of Grand Avenue demonstrating the numerous access points; 6) history of correspondence in this case; 7) excerpts from the 1989 Glendale General Plan at which point Grand Avenue was planned to be a freeway; 8) excerpts from the Glendale Zoning Ordinance, including the entire Definitions Section; 9) an affidavit from Mark Lawler, a Viacom employee, regarding the relocation of the billboards; 10) an affidavit from.John Clemens, a Viacom employee, reaffirming the fact there is no such thing as an expressway under ADOT terms and that ADOT has jurisdiction and control over state routes like Grand Avenue. He contended that his exhibits represent facts as opposed to studies and wish lists that the city used. He stated that the relocation sites represent logical places for the replacement of the billboards. Mr. Aronson emphasized that the city would not be opening Pandora's box if the ruling were in Viacom's favor, because of spacing and zoning requirements for relocations. They have applied for five of the six potential relocation spaces in the corridor along the railroad tracks. Mr. Aronson concluded by asking the Board to rule in favor of the July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 9 applicant, if they find that there is any ambiguity in the ordinance. It makes public policy sense to replace the billboards along Grand Avenue, and timely and appropriate applications were made. He asked the Board not to look at the studies or wish lists but to rule based on the facts. He restated his strong belief that Viacom has a claim for damages, although Viacom is trying to avoid a claim and is not interested in pursuing a claim if an appropriate interpretation is made and permits are issued promptly. In response to questions by Boardmember Schroth, Mr. Aronson confirmed that the property on which Viacom's billboards were located was property against which condemnation actions have been filed but have not gone to judgment or payment of just compensation. ADOT has not yet acquired title to the property. ADOT does not intend to pursue the condemnation actions as long as Viacom is pursuing the relocation case with the City of Glendale. The billboards were removed in the spirit of cooperation with ADOT because ADOT wanted to build the improvements that are under construction. The billboards could not have been maintained at their previous locations as ADOT is committed to the project. While they do not have title to the property, they have an Order of Possession. • Boardmember Schroth asked if ADOT believed the billboards would be replaced in the same proximity as the old locations. Mr. Aronson answered that the proximity is within the City of Glendale along Grand Avenue and he believed that was the understanding of ADOT. Boardmember Marx asked if Viacom has a billboard near the Northern/57th Avenue intersection. Mr. Aronson answered that he believed so, although it was a case filed later and is not included in the package presented to the Board today. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the condemned properties are along both sides of Grand Avenue. Mr. Aronson answered that he believed they were. Boardmember Giarrusso asked what properties were condemned on the west side of Grand Avenue. Mr. Aronson said there are two condemned properties near the railroad on the west side. Mr. Froke confirmed for Boardmember Schroth that Section 7.106 was adopted in July 1993. Boardmember Schroth noted that Mr. Aronson's Exhibit 4 refers to Grand Avenue as a "corridor." Mr. Aronson acknowledged the document makes reference to the Grand Avenue corridor but not in reference to a freeway corridor, to which the Glendale Zoning Ordinance refers. He suggested that the corridor reference implies freeway. If not, it could be applied to any street, and there is no impact of the Remove and Replacement Ordinance. To the extent there is ambiguity, he reiterated, the benefit of the doubt must go to the property owner under Arizona law. Mr. Froke augmented his previous answer to Boardmember Schroth's question about Section 7.106 stating that July 1993 was the most recent adoption of that section. The section was first adopted in January 1989. July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 10 Boardmember Iwanski asked Mr. Aronson if ADOT classifies, declassifies, or reclassifies projects depending upon funding, funding sources, and changing political priorities. Mr. Aronson answered that there is a long history of changes in ADOT plans and designations, e.g. Grand Avenue was planned to be a freeway in the 1980s and later abandoned as such. Boardmember Iwanski asked if words such as freeway, expressway, and parkway are legal definitions or terms used for planning purposes and public outreach. Mr. Aronson stated that there are definitions of certain terms, i.e. freeway. And there are legal definitions by the state and federal government in terms of funding freeways. There could be a definition of expressway, but there is not one in the Glendale ordinance or by ADOT. Additionally, neither the real estate market nor common sense regard Grand Avenue as a high-speed, highly limited access freeway/expressway. In response to a question by Boardmember Iwanski, Mr. Aronson stated that Grand Avenue is not an expressway because it is not defined as such in the Glendale Zoning Ordinance and because it has 140 curb cut access points at grade, half a dozen stop lighted intersections and a dozen other streets intersecting Grand Avenue. Under state law, the definition of what was described is a major arterial street. He was not sure if major arterial street is defined in the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. He affirmed that after the Grand Avenue improvements are completed, it would still define it as a street, which is defined in the Ordinance as a "public thoroughfare including road, highway, driveway, avenue, boulevard, and any other thoroughfare which affords the principal means of access to abutting property." He added that the only means of access to most of the properties abutting Grand Avenue is at grade, directly off Grand Avenue. Boardmember Iwanski commented that when he reads the words freeway, expressway, parkway, right-of-way, or planned corridor, he is left with an understanding that the clear intent of the city, as a matter of public policy, does not think it is wise to put billboards in or adjacent to those transportation designations. He stated that the City of Glendale has a right to define a transportation designation. He asked if Mr. Aronson was aware of a state law allowing ADOT to impose its definitions on a local jurisdiction. Mr. Aronson answered that a state route is within ADOT jurisdiction to designate as it pleases. Boardmember Iwanski stated that he reviewed the history of Grand Avenue, which he relayed in detail culminating with a description of citizen forums and political discussions about the improvement of Grand Avenue. In those discussions, there were numerous references made to Grand Avenue as freeway, expressway, corridor, parkway, etc. With regard to state routes, Boardmember Iwanski noted that parts of Grand Avenue were under the jurisdiction of other departments of transportation than ADOT. He suggested that if there were no express ADOT rationale regarding the location of billboards, the City of Glendale would have jurisdiction. Mr. Aronson respectfully disagreed for reasons previously stated. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if permits were required for removing the billboards. Mr. Aronson said he didn't believe permits were required. Boardmember Giarrusso noted the Demolition section of Glendale's Zoning Ordinance, which requires permits be issued for "any acts or process which requires a building permit under the building code of the city which July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 11 destroys in part or in full a house, building or other structure." He suggested that the billboards were, therefore, removed illegally and, as such, cannot be replaced. Mr. Aronson stated that, to his knowledge, the signs were removed legally. He noted that the city has not raised this issue with respect to this case. Boardmember Iwanski stated that, as a member of the board, he was raising the issue. Mr. Aronson stated that Viacom has removed billboards legally and safely throughout the metropolitan area. He verified that the billboards removed were replaced in Phoenix; he was not sure about Peoria. Mr. Mark Lawler, Viacom Outdoor Advertising, was sworn in to testify. Mr. Lawler testified that Exhibits 9 and 10 are true and correct based upon his knowledge and experience with Viacom, ADOT and various local jurisdictions. Vice Chairperson,Dietzman referred to Exhibit 4 and suggested that the applicant and the city are agreeing in their 'reference to Grand Avenue as a corridor. Mr. Aronson responded that Viacom does not agree Grand Avenue is a corridor as set forth in the Glendale Zoning Ordinance Section, because they believe this reference applies to freeway corridors. If it applies to any type of transportation corridor, then Mr. Aronson stated it is a meaningless provision. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the railroad's authority over the property along the west side of Grand Avenue supercedes Glendale's Zoning Ordinance as it relates to their authorization to Viacom to erect the billboards. Mr. Aronson answered that Viacom qualifies to be granted the permits requested under the ordinance, regardless of whether they are constructing on railroad right-of-way. Boardmember Giarrusso asked when Exhibit 4 (ADOT's web page) was last updated. Mr. Aronson was not able to answer. Vice Chairperson Dietzman asked about the size of the requested billboards. Mr. Aronson answered that the specific information is included in the application but represents a trade of square footage under the removal and replacement guidelines of the ordinance. The signs are limited to 300 square feet, regardless of the size of the signs removed. Vice Chairperson Dietzman asked how the landscape improvements would impact the billboards. Mr. Aronson suggested the improvements would be made beneath and around the signs and would not be unusual. In response to another question about sign size, Mr. Aronson explained that a 300 square foot sign in the industry is considered to be a medium size sign. The large signs referred to by Vice Chairperson Dietzman are 672 square feet or larger. The height of the billboards will be 28 feet to the top and 12 feet high by 24 feet wide. Boardmember Schroth asked how far the right-of-way line is off of the curb face of the northwest/southeast side of Grand Avenue. Mr. Aronson said he understands the railroad owns everything up to the curb and that ADOT, as a state route, owns the curb and the traveled roadway. July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 12 Boardmember Iwanski, referred to the definition of expressway in the dictionary, as "A high speed divided highway for through traffic with access partially or fully controlled and grade separations at important intersections with other roads." He noted that high speed used to be 55 miles per hour but is now 75 mph. He suggested that parties involved need to acknowledge the changes in regards to definitions and legalities. Absent something from ADOT that provides a legal definition, in his mind, the City of Glendale is empowered to make its own definitions and to govern the type of advertising included along its transportation routes. The meeting was recessed for a 15-minute break and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Froke noted that the height of the billboards is limited by the city's ordinance to 25 feet and only one supportcolumn is permitted. He clarified that the City of Glendale is also providing funding for various improvements to Grand Avenue through the Glendale Go Program. Regarding the discussion relative to definitions, he stated that in the transportation-planning world the term of expressway is basically a form of art. He provided copies of an excerpt from the City of Glendale Transportation Plan, which included definitions of freeway and expressway. The plan defines expressway as a "full or partial access-controlled roadway to facilitate regional travel." Mr. Froke reiterated staff's recommendation that the Board affirm the decision of the Planning Director, as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Jacobs concluded the presentation of the city's case. Vice-Chairperson called for closing statements. Mr. Flenner directed the Board to determine whether or not the City of Glendale has designated an expressway, parkway, right-of-way, or planned corridor for Grand Avenue. If it has, then no billboards can be located within 660 feet. He suggested that ADOT's involvement in the project for the purposes of the Board's decision is irrelevant, as is railroad right-of-way. ADOT can condemn any property, regardless of ownership. Mr. Flenner suggested that the applicant's argument that since there is no definition of expressway legally, then the corridor must be a freeway, is not substantiated. He noted that the term expressway is defined by the city in its Transportation Plan. The key term is that Grand Avenue can be a planned expressway and was so designated in 1989. It is the opinion of the staff that there is clear evidence to support the designation by the City of Glendale of Grand Avenue as an expressway requiring billboard placement at no less than 600 feet from Grand Avenue. Mr. Aronson stated that ADOT's designations are relevant, because ADOT is the only authority that controls and has jurisdiction over Grand Avenue. The definition of expressway is not found in the Zoning Ordinance, and the definition in the Transportation Plan is debatable. Assuming one could debate what expressway means, the real estate market regards Grand Avenue as a major street; and, the city has not properly defined property owners' rights through specific July 10, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 13 language in its ordinance. He stated that what is real and funded is different than what is wished and hoped for and studied. He asked the Board to make those distinctions. Staff had no further comments. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Boardmember Giarrusso stated he was not ready to make a decision due to the bulk of the handouts and information provided. Boardmember Iwanski discussed the Board's responsibilities in terms of making a decision. Mr. Flenner clarified what the Board's action involved that being to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Director. Boardmember Iwanski made a MOTION to affirm the Planning Director did evaluate all relative provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, considered all relative information related to the decision or;interpretation and that the Planning Director's decision was correct. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 1 (Boardmember Giarrusso abstained). Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for Other Business. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to vacate the Board's August meeting. Boardmember Marx SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 5-0. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for the Planning Staff Report. Staff had no report. At the request of a Board member, Mr. Flenner outlined how further appeal of the Board's decision tonight in the Viacom case would proceed. He clarified that the applicant's referral to damages was unfounded, because there is no time limit requiring the Board of Adjustment to hear a case in any given timeframe. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. k6—el Sally ling, Recordiecretary