Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 9/11/2003 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ward, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Ward, Chairperson Tommie Beck George Giarrusso David Iwanski Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Dietzman, Vice-Chairperson Carol Marx CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, City Attorney Tabitha Perry, Planner Lynn Crance, Recording Secretary Chairperson Ward explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Ward called for approval of the July 10, 2003 minutes. Boardmember Iwanski made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the July 10,2003 meeting. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 5-0. 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. September 11, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: VAR-03-10 REQUEST: A request by Jean Vitkovich to approve a variance to allow a front yard fence with a height of 6 feet where 3 feet is the maximum permitted in the R1-6 (Single Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 10018 North 49th Lane. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Barrel District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Jean Vitkovich, applicant, explained she has lived in the house for seven-and-a-half years and has made numerous improvements over the years. She stated the wall was intended to beautify her front yard and mirror the six foot wall on the south side of her house. She noted that her neighbors did not express concern when she informed them of her construction plans. She said no other residents in the area have a backyard fence running the length of their front yard; therefore, her situation is unique. She submitted drawings of her home and construction. She said, while she considered planting vegetation along her neighbor's wall, she decided against doing so because the leaves would fall into her neighbor's pool. She said the wall also provides her with a sense of security, noting her vehicles have been broken into on several occasions. She stated her neighbors have complimented her on the final result of the construction. She stated she previously received approval from the city to build an addition to her house in the same location and, while the addition was never built, she assumed the wall would be acceptable. Boardmember Beck asked what is located behind the boat and if the boat could be moved further back. Ms. Vitkovitch said the area behind the boat contains a shed and cement area with a 10- foot opening. She said it would be difficult to move the boat without placing it directly into her neighbor's view. Boardmember Beck expressed his opinion the applicant's wall represents an improvement over the other block wall. Boardmember Iwanski commended Ms. Vitkovitch on her attempts to reach out to her neighbors. He asked her if she was told specifications and requirements when she approached the city with the idea of adding on to her house. Ms. Vitkovitch explained that the planner she worked with told her a 24-foot addition would be acceptable; therefore, she assumed a less imposing wall would also be acceptable. Ms. Vitkovitch clarified for Chairperson Ward that she did not contact the city when she constructed the wall. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ruth Lamb, 4939 West Onyx Avenue, Glendale, AZ. 85302 stated she lives at the end of the cul- de-sac and find's the applicant's wall aesthetically pleasing. September 11, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Dr. J.M. Davidson, 10024 North 49th Lane, Glendale, AZ. 85302 explained he lives on the adjacent property to the north. He said he likes the wall and believes it adds to the attractiveness of the house. He asked the Board to grant the variance. Boardmember Iwanski asked Dr. Davidson if he fears approval of the applicant's request will result in a proliferation of similar walls being constructed in the future. Dr. Davidson responded no. Chairperson Ward asked Dr. Davidson if he would find it acceptable if all of his neighbors built security enclosures in their front yards. Dr. Davidson answered no, questioning whether similar structures could even be constructed at other homes in the neighborhood. Sonya Barcelo, 10013 North 49th Lane, Glendale, AZ. 85302 expressed her opinion that the applicant's fence adds to the value of the home and neighborhood. She said she would rather sit in her front yard and look at the applicant's fence than in her rear yard where she is forced to look at an RV parked in her neighbor's yard. Boardmember Beck agreed several unsightly RV's are located in front and rear yards throughout the neighborhood. Chairman Ward noted that the applicant and variance must stand on its own. Board member Beck stated that he couldn't find any reason why the variance should not be granted. Board member Giarrusso asked Ms. Vitkovitch what brought her to the Commission. Ms. Vitkovitch explained a complaint was called into the city and she was cited. Ms. Vitkovitch thanked her neighbors for coming to the meeting and supporting her request. With regard to concerns that other neighbors would follow her lead, Ms. Vitkovitch stated every case should be considered on an individual basis. Chairperson Ward reiterated that the Commission has to make the required findings in order to grant a variance. Board member Giarrusso referred to a situation several years ago in which the applicant was allowed to construct a six-foot wall in their front yard. Mr. Jacobs was unfamiliar with the particular case cited by Board member Giarrusso, but explained that most variances for front yard walls are granted for security or to minimize impact of adjacent traffic. Board member Iwanski pointed out the applicant indicated her vehicles were broken into on three occasions, asking if that would be valid enough reason to grant the variance. Mr. Jacobs said that it depended on the proposal. Ms. Perry clarified for Board member Beck that the gate would be 17 feet from the sidewalk. September 11, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Mr. Jacobs confirmed for Board member Schroth that the minimum front building setback totals 20 feet. Board member Beck asked at what point the front yard ends and the side yard begins. Mr. Jacobs responded that it was the front plane of the house. Board member Beck asked if the fence would be in compliance if the gate were moved back three feet to the edge of the house. Mr. Jacobs responded no, explaining the setbacks for a wall differ from the setbacks for a house. Chairperson Ward asked about the applicant's testimony in which her previous request for a 24- foot addition was approved. Mr. Jacobs was not aware of the previous approval. Ms. Vitkovich explained she was told by Code Compliance, at the time she was cited, that the wall had to be no more than three feet in front of the garage. She said that the city later told her nothing could be constructed in front of the front plane of the house. In response to Board member Giarrusso's question, Ms. Vitkovitch stated the wall was constructed in February 2003. Dr. Davidson agreed security is an issue in their neighborhood, noting his cars have also been vandalized. Chairperson Ward closed the public hearing. Board member Giarrusso made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR-03-10 as detailed in the Site Plan. Board member Beck SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Board member Giarrusso stated the city approved a similar variance in the past and the applicant's wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood. He said; therefore, he will support the motion. Boardmember Iwanski stated, while the layout of the property is not necessarily unique, the vandalism the applicant has suffered makes her situation unique. He stated the applicant's efforts to gain the support of her neighbors will also influence his vote. He expressed concern, however, that approval will set a dangerous precedence. With regard to setting a precedence, Mr. Flenner clarified that future cases would be judged on their own merits. Boardmember Beck stated he supports the applicant's request because the wall does not negatively affect the appearance of the neighborhood. September 11, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Boardmember Schroth thanked the applicant for her presentation, stating he is taking all of the information the Board has received into consideration. Chairperson Ward stated the Board is unable to approve a variance if they cannot meet all four Findings. He said, while he believes the variance meets Findings 3 and 4, he is not sure it meets Findings 1 and 2. He explained the difficulty he has is that the wall looks nice and the neighbors like it. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 1 (Chairperson Ward voted nay). Chairperson Ward called for Other Business. Mr. Flenner noted Viacom filed a special action in Superior Court asking the court to order the city to issue permits. He said he filed a Motion to Dismiss the action and believes it will be thrown out because Viacom did not give evidence to back up their position that Grand Avenue is not an expressway. He stated they will update the Board on the status of the action at next month's meeting. With regard to tonight's case, Boardmember Giarrusso expressed frustration at spending an hour-and-a-half debating the future of a beautiful, well constructed wall on the basis of one complaint. Mr. Jacobs explained there are a number of violations in the neighborhood and Code Compliance is required to respond to all complaints. Boardmember Giarrusso reiterated the Board is not compelled to grant similar variances in the future based on tonight's approval. Boardmember Beck asked how the city intends to enforce the new law intended to clean up unsightly properties. Mr. Flenner stated Code has increased the number of Compliance officers. He acknowledged that the majority of citations are complaint driven. Chairperson Ward called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Ward called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As ther was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. As 69-4-10L-- Lynn ra��Recordin Secretary MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2003 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ward, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Ward, Chairperson Carl Dietzman, Vice-Chairperson Tommie Beck David Iwanski Carol Marx Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: George Giarrusso CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, Deputy City Attorney Tracy Stevens, Senior Planner Tabitha Perry,Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Ward explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Ward called for approval of the September 11, 2003 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the September 11, 2003 meeting. Boardmember Dietzman 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. October 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Ward called for public hearing items. APPLICATION NO.: VAR03-09 REQUEST: A request by Mr. John Nielsen to allow a side yard setback of 6 feet, 5 inches, where 10 feet is the minimum required and lot coverag of 43% where 40% is the maximum allowed. The pro erty_is zoned R1-6 (Single Residential) and is located within the Adventure Homes Subdivision. The property is located at 10429 North 49th Avenue. Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry (Barrel District). Ms. Perry presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Chairperson Ward asked if the structure is attached to the primary residence. Ms. Perry responded no, stating there is approximately six feet between the two structures. John Nielsen, applicant, explained the structure is intended to house his RV and truck that had previously been parked in front. Boardmember Schroth asked if the structure will eventually be attached to the house. Mr. Nielsen answered yes, stating that is why he requested 43 percent lot coverage. In response to Boardmember Beck's question, Mr. Nielsen explained the trees and gate prevented him from being able to build the structure closer to the house. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Boardmember Beck made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR03-09, subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Marx stated she hopes the structure will be aesthetically pleasing. Boardmember Beck expressed his opinion it will help cushion the house from the noise and disruption of Peoria Avenue. Boardmember Iwanski suggested there may have been a better way to construct the structure, acknowledging, however, the applicant was right not to remove the tree. Chairperson Ward expressed his opinion the request does not meet Findings 1 and 2. No further comments were made. October 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 2 (Chairperson Ward and Commissioner Iwanski voted nay). APPLICATION NO.: VAR03-13 REQUEST: A variance request by Joe Gonzales in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) Zoning District, to allow a 10-foot side yard setback where 15 feet is the minimum required. The property is located at 17848 North 67th Avenue. Staff Contact: Tracy Stevens (Sahuaro District). Ms. Stevens presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Chairperson Ward asked in what year was the house constructed. He also asked if the applicant obtained a permit for the patio cover. Ms. Stevens responded she did not know the year of construction and no permit was obtained. Joe Gonzales, applicant, stated the house was built in 1977. He explained the patio was built to provide shade during frequent family gatherings. Boardmember Iwanski referred to a letter of opposition submitted by Ms. Hatfield and asked Mr. Gonzales if he intends to add any additional adornments that would infringe on Ms. Hatfield's ability to enjoy her property. Mr. Gonzales pointed out the columns referenced in Ms. Hatfield's letter are actually 19.5 feet away from the fence. Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Gonzales why he failed to obtain a permit before building the patio. Mr. Gonzales explained he thought if a structure was smaller than 200 square feet, a permit was not required. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Gene Krueziger, 18026 North 67th Avenue, Glendale, stated the patio looks great and Mr. Gonzales has always been a good neighbor. He said he supports the applicant's request. Elaine Linderman Anderson, 6838 West Villa Theresa Drive, Glendale, commented on the applicant's efforts to maintain and improve his property. She voiced her support of the applicant's request. Chairperson Ward closed the public hearing. Boardmember Iwanski made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR03-13. Boardmember Marx SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. October 9, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Boardmember Iwanski said he found the letter from the Davenports in support of the request to be very compelling. Boardmember Beck stated the applicant did a great job on the patio. Vice-chair Dietzman agreed the patio is a great addition to the neighborhood. Boardmember Marx voiced her support of the applicant's request. Boardmember Schroth agreed the workmanship is very nice, stating it is obvious the applicant takes great pride in his house. Chairperson Ward expressed his opinion the request meets the required findings. No further comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Ward called for other business. There was none. Chairperson Ward called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Ward called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. // Sally M= ing,Recordin: "ecretary