Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 5/12/2005 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,MAY 12, 2005 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 Moe Gallegos Yvonne Knaack Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator David Gordon, City Attorney John Verdugo, Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Ward explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Ward called for approval of the February 10, 2005 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the February 10, 2005 meeting. Vice-chairperson Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 6 to 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. May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-01 REQUEST: A request by Mr. Larry Dong, Lawrence Funding, LLC and Martiny Family et al., for five variances. 1) A variance to reduce the side setback along the east property line to 42 feet (varies to 46 feet) where 60 feet is required. 2) A variance to reduce the rear setback along the north property line to 41 feet (varies to 46 feet) where 60 feet is required. 3) A variance to reduce the number of parking spaces provided to 116 spaces where 140 parking spaces are required. 4) A variance to reduce the landscaped area to 12% where 20% is required. 5) A variance to reduce the landscape buffer adjacent to single family residential district to 10 feet where 15 feet is required. The request is related to the expansion of a commercial shopping center. The property is in a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district and is located at 8282 West Camelback Road. Staff Contact: John R. Verdugo (Yucca District). Mr. Verdugo presented the application, reviewing the site and each variance request. He explained that request#4 has been amended to read 17% of landscaping provided where 20% is required because the applicant had not been counting landscaping that should have been included in the total count. Mr. Verdugo further explained that the site will have cross access with the existing Sunset Square retail site. He stated that the block wall next to the residential property would be 8 feet high. He added further detail on the surrounding neighborhood. Residential homes located to the north and east of the site are large parcels, many have horse privileges, are very well. maintained, and residences are usually 200-250 feet back from the existing perimeter wall. Chairman Ward informed the board and applicant that each variance request will be voted on individually. Boardmember Schroth asked for clarification on the amendment to request #4. He asked if that amended figure was based on the approved site plan. Mr. Verdugo confirmed that it was based on the plan presented but design review was not completed for the site plan. Boardmember Beck requested clarification on requests#1 and 2. He asked where the 42 feet and 41 feet are measured to. Mr. Verdugo informed him that they are measured from the property line to the building. Vice-chair Dietzman stated it appears that there are parking spaces behind the buildings. He asked if those are parallel parking spaces. Mr. Verdugo said those will be for employee use. Vice-chair Dietzman asked if those are included in the parking space count. Mr. Verdugo said some were and some were not. Vice-chair Dietzman also asked if that was a loading dock area behind the building. Mr. Verdugo stated that the applicant could best answer that question. May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Boardmember Gallegos questioned if the block wall was on the property line. Mr. Verdugo confirmed that it was. Several boardmembers had questions on a dimension on the submitted site plan. Notations were unclear as to the exact number. It was finally clarified that the distance for the northern drive aisles and parking spaces was 181/feet, not 18 feet, 5 inches. Boardmember Beck asked if residents north of the site would be looking at an 8-foot block wall when they walk out their back door. Mr. Verdugo replied that they would. Chairperson Ward asked if it was now a 6-foot wall. Mr. Verdugo said it was but would be an 8-foot wall when finished. Vice-chair Dietzman asked if the six parking spaces around the southern most restaurant were included in the parking space count. Mr. Verdugo stated they were not. Chairman Ward asked about the landscape set back next to Camelback Road. Mr. Verdugo confirmed it was 15 feet. Larry Dong, applicant, explained that 122 parking spaces are being provided so request #3 also needs to be amended. He stated that the site has been vacant for a long time and dumping has been a constant problem. He added that the SRP transformers cut down on visibility off of 83rd Avenue. Mr. Dong commented that the current zoning regulations are more restrictive than those of 1993 under which phase I of the property was developed. He presented the compromises that he and the neighborhood group have discussed in a past meeting. A block wall will be constructed before any building begins on the site to keep disruption to a minimum. The site will be totally fenced to prevent vandalism. All lighting will face inward. Fast growing trees will be planted along the new block wall to further curtail noise and light pollution. Boardmember Schroth asked the applicant for the measurement on the northside and eastside of the existing commercial site to the site's property line. He also asked for the minimum parking stall depth. Bob Polcar, architect, stated it was 18 feet. Boardmember Schroth asked what the setback was. Mr. Polcar answered it was 30 feet. Mr. Verdugo corrected that the minimum parking stall depth allowed by city is 181 feet with a 11 foot overhang. Boardmember Knaack asked who owns the existing commercial site. Mr. Dong stated that it was co-owned and AM/PM is one of the owners. Boardmember Knaack then asked about the common ingress/egress use. Mr. Dong confirmed that it is allowed and already on record. Boardmember Gallegos questioned the number of parking spaces. Mr. Dong stated there were 122 on the site plan. Boardmember Schroth stated he only counted 121. Mr. Jacobs assured the board that an applicant can reduce a variance request before the board during discussion. May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Vice-chair Dietzman asked if the large proposed building could have a grocery store as a tenant due to his concern of the delivery traffic. Mr. Dong stated that was probably not going to happen. He pointed out there is nothing planned for a loading dock that would be required for delivery of grocery items. Boardmember Schroth said that there is 631 feet on the main entrance off of 83rd Avenue. He asked Mr. Dong what the required minimum drive aisle width along the front of any of the proposed stores is. The applicant stated 24 feet. Boardmember Schroth stated that with 48 foot aisles there was extra space. Boardmember Schroth asked if this would allow the entire building plan be moved south and allow for a larger setback area between the residential areas. Both the applicant and his architect questioned how this would affect the fire truck turning radius. Boardmember Beck asked what the purpose of moving the entire site 2 feet would be. Boardmember Schroth stated the standard width is 24 feet which would allow extra space. Vice-chair Dietzman asked if the SRP power boxes along 83rd Avenue would be landscaped. Mr. Dong stated they had not considered it but would be open to the option. Mr. Jacobs stated that the utility easement and right-of-way are considerations. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting for public comment on this case. Gary Rolf, 8227 West Orange Drive, Glendale, explained he will be the spokesman for several homeowners present at the meeting. All are opposed to the project without certain stipulations added. He confirmed the several compromises that they believed they had reached with the developer: lights shining inward towards the site, fence surrounding the entire work area to reduce vandalism, a block wall built before any construction began, and the wall will be 10 feet in height. Mr. Rolf suggested that some type of thorny shrubs be planted along the wall to decrease the possibility of the walls being climbed into homeowners back yards. Boardmember Gallegos asked him if they wanted sticker shrubs, not trees. Mr. Rolf stated that what they want is the 10-foot wall. Boardmember Knaack assured Mr. Rolf that the board was aware of his opposition by the letter submitted earlier. Boardmember Knaack questioned if a 10-foot high wall was allowed by regulation. Mr. Jacobs stated that 10-foot walls are allowed, although not encouraged, they are often built around a loading dock. Boardmember Schroth asked Mr. Rolf if the 10 foot wall is the view from the back of his home or at the fence. Mr. Rolf replied that it is what is seen from the back of his home, he wants the highest wall possible. Boardmember Schroth asked Mr. Rolf is the developer specifically said he would put in a 10- foot wall as a buffer. Mr. Rolf said the Mr. Dong never specifically agreed to a 10-foot wall. Boardmember Schroth asked Mr. Rolf is he and the other homeowners realize that a 10-foot wall could fall over much easier, especially in natural circumstances such as wind storms. Mr. Rolf May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 5 stated they did realize that, also, it was a very old wall and that they want it totally rebuilt, not just have courses added on to the top. Chairperson Ward pointed out that based on the application, if the applicant builds the new fence, two feet could be recovered from the homeowners setback distance because their fences sit on the developer's property line. Mr. Rolf stated he would not allow his fence to be taken down. Boardmember Beck asked Mr. Rolf if the point of contention then was the 10-foot wall. Mr. Rolf replied that it was. Ruth Catalano, 5128 N. 81st Drive, Glendale, Arizona, asked what the proposed height of the largest retail building would be and if it would be multi-storied. Mr. Dong answered that it would be one-story, and the height would be somewhere between 16 and 20 feet. She asked if it could be higher than one story. Mr. Jacobs replied that 30 feet was the maximum allowed height. Mr. Dong wanted to answer the concerns of the homeowners. He did not specify a 10-foot fence. because he though it required a variance from the city. He also would not commit to the height because of possible problems that a Pandora's box could open. He offered to place fast growing trees every 15 feet rather than 20 feet in lieu of a 10-foot wall. Boardmember Schroth asked if the 2-21/foot discrepancy where the fence sits has been verified. Mr. Dong replied that it has been confirmed by a survey. Boardmember Schroth pointed out that with a building height of 16 feet, the top of the building would still be seen by the homeowners with an 8-foot fence. Mr. Dong stated he would be comfortable with stipulations limiting the height of the building. He also offered to add ground cover and sticker shrubs as wall cover. He mentioned that the back of the area could be closed off after business hours tolimit possible vehicle use in scaling the walls into homeowners property. Mr. Rolf stated that he feels the developer does not want to build a 10-foot wall. He feels that price is an issue. Mr. Dong stated that mature trees of the size he has offered to plant are expensive. He stated that an engineered 10 foot wall could cause future problems and also the 2 feet would be taken back. Mr. Rolf stated that he gave permission to allow the developer to build the wall and is now hearing threats to lose some of his property. Boardmember Beck asked which wall would go up first. Mr. Dong stated that all neighbor 10- foot walls would be in place before construction started. Boardmember Beck asked if the 10- foot wall could be built in the same place as the current wall. Mr. Dong stated that the May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 6 scaffolding needs to be in place to build a 10-foot engineered wall. Mr. Polcar, the architect, stated they would need a 2-foot reduction in the landscaping. Chairperson Ward asked if a variance is needed for a 10-foot wall. Mr. Jacobs answered that one was not needed. Boardmember Schroth asked if bigger trees could be planted at the closer interval of 15 feet rather than 20 feet. Mr. Dong replied that 30-36" box trees would work at 15 foot spacing. Boardmember Schroth asked if they had a specific type in mind. Mr. Dong answered that a ficus type tree would be fast growing, shade producing, with little litter. Mr. Jacobs pointed out that the site plan has not been through the design review process. Those issues would be addressed at that time. As no further comments were made, Chairperson Ward closed the public input opportunity. Boardmember Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-01, request #1, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 11, 2005. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth commented that he hopes in the final design review the main buildings near the east property line could be moved away from that property line. Boardmember Knaack amended the MOTION to add a stipulation that a 10-foot fence separates the properties on the north and east property lines. Boardmember Gallegos SECONDED. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION TO AMEND PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Ward said this allows the action to move forward and fill the long vacant space yet protect the neighbors. Boardmember Beck questioned whether it would create problems. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Boardmember Gallegos made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-01, request #2, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 11, 2005 with a 10-foot fence separating the properties on the north and east property lines. Boardmember Dietzman SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. May 12, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 7 Boardmember Dietzman made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-01, request#3, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 11, 2005,with the corrected number of parking spaces at 122. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Boardmember Dietzman made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-01, request#4, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 11, 2005, with the corrected percentage of landscaped area at 17%. Boardmember Gallegos SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-01, request #5, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 11,2005,with the stipulation that perimeter lighting is to be facing in toward the property and not out towards the residential areas. Boardmember Knaack SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Boardmember Gallegos expressed his appreciation of the developer and the homeowners coming together to resolve their concerns. Boardmember Beck expressed his appreciation of the board's handling of this case and the chairman in particular in wording of these requests so that he could vote for passage. Boardmember Knaack offered the information that she did not lease space in the existing Sunset Square site many years before when she was looking for a business site because of this vacant land and the unknown potential of tenants. No additional comments were made. Chairperson Ward called for the Planning Staff Report. Chairperson Ward called for Board Comments and Suggestions. No further comments were made. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. S ally "'ling,Recordin 'ecretary