Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 11/13/2003 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 13, 2003 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:06 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Dietzman, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Dietzman, Vice-Chairperson Tommie Beck George Giarrusso David Iwanski Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Ward, Chairperson Carol Marx CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, Deputy City Attorney Tracy Stevens, Senior Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Vice Chairperson Dietzman explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for approval of the October 9, 2003 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the October 9, 2003 meeting. Boardmember Beck 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. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for public hearing items. November 13, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: VAR03-19 REQUEST: A request by Jo Goodman, Goodman Properties, in the C- 2 (General Commercial) Zoning District to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 63 spaces to 42 spaces for an indoor recreational facility. The property is located at 4424-4430 West Peoria Avenue. Staff Contact: Tracy Stevens (Barrel District). Mr. Flenner stated there are issues related to the property over which the Board has no jurisdiction. He said whether or not an indoor recreation facility is an appropriate use was decided by City Council when they adopted the current zoning ordinance. He stated, additionally, the Board has no authority over whether the applicant should be granted a liquor license, noting the applicant has a pending liquor license before the City of Glendale and the state. He explained the Board is restricted to the issue at hand, whether or not to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 63 to 42. • Ms. Stevens presented the application,reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Iwanski asked if a specific time period has been established for the two stipulations to be met. Ms. Stevens said compliance with the stipulations is typically ensured during design review. Boardmember Beck asked how many spaces are allocated to each of the other three businesses. Ms. Stevens stated the LaRosa Mexican Restaurant and Come N Go Market are each allotted 10 spaces, while the Other Room Lounge is designated 12 spaces and the vacant space is allotted five spaces under the current zoning ordinance requirements. Boardmember Beck asked if traffic is expected to triple with the proposed business. Ms. Stevens said the business already existed in the area, therefore traffic volume in the area is not expected to change. She confirmed there are no barriers to keep the applicant's customers from parking in spaces allocated to other businesses in the center. Ms. Stevens clarified for Boardmember Schroth there is a total of 79 spaces proposed for the center. Boardmember Giarrusso commented on the limited space in the parking lot, expressing concern vehicles will back into each other. Ms. Stevens stated the site plan was submitted to, and approved by, the Traffic Engineering Department. Mr. Jacobs pointed out the existing uses in the center have legal non-conforming parking rights. Boardmember Beck asked what effect approval of the variance would have on future tenants, should the applicant eventually move. Mr. Jacobs explained the variance is granted to the property and would be valid for any future similar use. November 13, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Jo Goodman, applicant, explained there are currently 49 spaces and they propose to add 30 more for a total of 79 spaces. She stated the chain link fence to the rear of the building will be removed and the spaces will be re-striped. She stated she is proposing to install a chain link fence between the canal and the property as well as a small section of fence to delineate the space between the car wash and her property. She discussed parking standards in other cities throughout the state, noting six cities have standards for billiard parlor parking. She said the standards range from 14 spaces to 54 spaces with an average requirement of 36 spaces. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the parking lot design is drawn to specifications. Ms. Goodman responded yes. Boardmember Beck asked how the applicant intends to add a separate entrance and exit. Ms. Goodman explained she will assign one of the two existing entrances from Peoria as an entrance and the other as an exit. Boardmember Beck expressed concern that other businesses in the center will run out of parking spaces. Ms. Goodman suggested they could designate certain spaces for specific businesses. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Scott Saville, P.O. Box 47060, Phoenix, stated the neighborhood is overwhelmingly against the proposed variance and submitted petitions to that end. He pointed out certain parking spaces are not available because they are dedicated to AT&T Wireless for the next 26 years. He said the applicant is currently 40 percent short of the number of spaces required for the proposed use. He said all of the tenants in the shopping center will have the same busy times, leaving their customers to scramble for parking spaces. He reported the pool hall was asked to leave its prior location because of crime and police activity, noting there were 130 police reports between that location and a second location at I-17 in Phoenix. He said the property is not as irregularly shaped as the applicant would lead the Board to believe, noting there are many miles of misshaped properties along the canal throughout Glendale. He disputed the applicant's claim that the required spaces would fit if the property were squared. He said the applicant's inability to acquire abutting property is not a hardship and, in fact, the applicant has made no attempt to purchase the abutting land or to put shared parking privileges on the abutting land. He said the property size has not changed since the current parking standards were adopted by the city, therefore, it cannot be considered a hardship. He disagreed with the applicant's claim that the City of Glendale does not have a defined parking standard for billiard halls in Glendale, stating billiard halls are classified as indoor recreational facilities and have a parking requirement of one space per 100 square feet. He stated the code specifically prohibits the Board of Adjustment from granting a variance in this circumstance, quoting "If a hardship is knowingly created, a variance is not possible by law." He said the code also prohibits the Board from granting a variance if the owner failed to consider other reasonable alternatives that do not require a variance. He stated, furthermore, the code prohibits the granting of a variance if the variance would constitute a change to the uses permitted in any zoning district or if the variance would constitute the grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the zoning district. November 13, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Diane Rhodes, of the Cactus District, Glendale, expressed concern about increased traffic resulting from the billiard hall. She said she also believes changing the entranceways will cause confusion among people who are used to accessing and exiting the property from either driveway. She expressed her opinion the market and restaurant have an inadequate number of parking spaces. Francis Richardson, Cactus District, Glendale, suggested people will attempt to use parking spaces in the Target shopping center and walk across Peoria Avenue. DoLores Raines, Cactus District, Glendale, said there are already times when parking is not available for current tenants. She stated traffic on Peoria is horrible and will only get worse if the proposed use is approved. Tom Vassallo, Cactus District, Glendale, stated the spaces the applicant is proposing to add will be in the back of the building, therefore, it will not appear to arriving vehicles that spaces are available. Chris Cross, Cactus District, Glendale, stated he used to go to a motorcycle shop in the subject center. He said the parking spaces are very tight and hard to access. Howard Gillmore, Cactus District, Glendale, asked if the proposed establishment will go away if the variance is denied. Mr. Flenner said the property owner would make that decision. Mr. Gillmore said it appears the applicant is using property that does not belong to them, therefore, the variance should be denied. Emil Sprintz, Cactus District, Glendale, stated the center is already crowded and traffic on Peoria is very heavy. He mentioned the lack of handicapped parking spaces. Paul Thompson, Cactus District, Glendale, asked the Board to follow up on the dispute over the AT&T property. He asked what will be done to avoid potential criminal activity in the rear parking lot. He said horrific accidents happen daily along that section of Peoria Avenue, expressing concern that increased traffic coming out of the subject parking lot will add to the problem. Natalie Grooman, Cactus District, Glendale, stated traffic and the increased probability of accidents are her main concerns. James Grooman, Cactus District, Glendale, asked if vehicles will have to cross the car wash property to access the parking lot on the north side of the building. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman reiterated the applicant intends to construct a fence to delineate the two properties. Mr. Grooman stated the fence will result in a bottleneck. Larry Aegerter, Cactus District, Glendale, asked which spaces will be designated for which businesses. Vice-Chairperson Dietzman explained the spaces are not currently designated. November 13, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Jim Raper, Cactus District, Glendale, agreed the space between the building and the fence will be tight. He asked if emergency vehicles will be able to access the property if all of the spaces are being utilized. Mary Thompson, Cactus District, Glendale, submitted a speaker's card in opposition to the proposed variance, but chose not to address the Board. Susan Banks, Cactus District, Glendale, submitted a speaker's card in opposition to the proposed variance, but chose not to address the Board. Jackie Gillmore, Cactus District, Glendale, submitted a speaker's card in opposition to the proposed variance, but chose not to address the Board. Jim Kobashi, Phoenix resident, submitted a speaker's card in support of the proposed variance, but chose not to address the Board. Dan DeLaCruz, Peoria resident, submitted a speaker's card in support of the proposed variance, but chose not to address the Board. In response to Boardmember Iwanski's request, Ms. Goodman pointed out the location of power lines and boundaries of the property. Boardmember Beck asked when the owner purchased the property. Ms. Goodman responded March 2002. Boardmember Beck asked if the owner was aware of the AT&T lease when they purchased the property. Ms. Goodman said the proposed AT&T lease area was not part of her lease. Boardmember Iwanski referred to the AT&T lease, submitted by Mr. Saville as Exhibit A, noting there is a difference between the proposed lease area and the legal description for the lease area. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the applicant has seen Exhibit A submitted by Mr. Saville before. Ms. Goodman stated she did not submit the AT&T lease and does not have a copy of the lease. She said the information submitted by Mr. Saville was a proposed document, not the final adopted document. Vice Chairperson Dietzman closed the public hearing. Boardmember Iwanski asked Mr. Saville if his opinion as to whether or not the parking spots are properly designated has changed since hearing the legal description. Mr. Saville responded no. He said, while he does not know how to read legal descriptions, the document was signed by AT&T, notarized, and filed with the county. He said, regardless of whether the AT&T property was properly designated, the question is whether the Board will let the applicant get away with 40 percent less parking than should be required. November 13, 2003 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Boardmember Iwanski made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR03-19, subject to the two stipulations outlined in the staff report. Boardmember Beck SECONDED the MOTION. Vice Chairperson Dietzman opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Giarrusso referred to Exhibit A, stating the layout of the parking spaces was presented in 1996. Boardmember Iwanski reiterated the site plan was submitted to the Traffic Engineering Department and approved. Boardmember Giarrusso asked if the Board has the authority to reconfigure the parking spaces as set forth in Exhibit A. Mr. Flenner explained, while the document was recorded, it was recorded for illustration purposes. Boardmember Schroth clarified there is almost 15 feet between the corner of the building and the fence. Boardmember Iwanski thanked residents for addressing the Board and expressing their concerns. He said, however, the Board is restricted to considering the four required findings. He expressed his opinion that, not withstanding the issues and concerns brought forth by the residents, the proposed variance meets the required findings. No further comments were made. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for Other Business. There was none. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Vice Chairperson Dietzman called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. // // • Sally - ling, Recordin'_'f ecretary