Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 6/9/2005 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,JUNE 9, 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 Sandy Burrell Moe Gallegos Yvonne Knaack Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Jon Paladini, City Attorney Teresa Hillner, Senior Planner Karen Stovall, Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Ward explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Ward called for approval of the May 12, 2005 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the May 12,2005 meeting. Vice-chair 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. June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Ward called for public hearing items. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-04 REQUEST: A request by Lynn and Elaine Krug for variances to 1) reduce the front yard setback to 60 feet where 75 feet is required, 2) reduce the west side yard setback to 20 feet where 50 feet is required, 3) reduce the east side yard setback to 44 feet where 50 feet is required, and 4) increase the lot coverage to 15% where a maximum 10% is permitted in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new house. The property is located at 6301 West Pershing Avenue. Staff Contact: Karen Stovall (Sahuaro District). Ms. Stovall presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Beck asked if the property is zoned A-1 or SR-30. Ms. Stovall said A-1, however, the zoning would be compatible with SR-30 if the property were subdivided. Lynn Krug, applicant, offered to answer questions. Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Krug to explain his plan for the property. Mr. Krug said they tried to select a house that will blend into the area and add value to the neighborhood. He explained the house is single story and similar to other houses in terms of its architecture. He stated his neighbors appear to support their request and no complaints have been voiced. Boardmember Beck asked if moving the house six feet sufficed the neighbor who expressed concern about the west side setback. Mr. Krug responded yes, noting it established a standard for conformity within the neighborhood. Mr. Krug thanked staff for their hard work and the Board for its consideration. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public input opportunity. Boardmember Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-04, subject to the Site Plan date stamped April 14, 2005. Vice-chair 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 7 to 0. June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 3 APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-02 REQUEST: A request by Jim West representing Clarence Morgan for two variances in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The request includes: 1) zero feet of landscape buffer where 15 feet is required along the south property line, and 2) five feet of landscaping along 73rd Avenue where an average of 20 feet is required. The property is located north of the northeast corner of 75th Avenue and Orangewood Avenue (7533 North 75th Avenue). Staff Contact: Teresa Hiliner(Ocotillo District). Ms. Hillner presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Schroth asked if the block wall to the north was built subject to a variance. Ms. Hillner said she could not find a variance as it was constructed pre-1993. Boardmember Gallegos asked if a variance would have been necessary at the time the wall was constructed. Ms. Hillner said prior to 1993 the street frontage was measured from the center of the road rather than the property line so the existing wall may have been set back the required 20 feet. Chairperson Ward asked where does the block wall meet the rock wall. Ms. Hillner stated on 73rd Avenue. Chairperson Ward asked if the property to the south on Orangewood is still zoned residential. Ms. Hillner responded yes. Boardmember Schroth asked if the stone wall would have gone through planning and been subject to approval. Ms. Hillner said the stone wall finish would have been allowed because of its higher quality. Boardmember Knaack asked if the property has had the same owner since 1993. Ms. Hillner said the current owner owned the property when it was rezoned in 2001, but she does not believe he owned it prior to that time. Vice-chairperson Dietzman asked if the fence on the south side represents the property line. Ms. Hillner explained that was a point of contention between the property owner to the south and the owner of the subject property. She said for the sake of this variance they determined the property line was the fence. Vice-chair Dietzman asked how long does a fence have to be in existence before it is considered legal. Mr. Paladini stated there is a 10 year adverse possession prescriptive right rule. He said, however, unless it is established in a quiet title action, the legal description property line is the property line for purposes of the parcel. He stated, if a dispute as to whether or not the parcel on the left has rights to some of the blacktop on the right has not been fully resolved, the Board cannot conclude to include that area in the property. Chairperson Ward asked if the Board can continue assuming the property line presented is, in fact, the property line. Ms. Hillner clarified the applicant claims the property line ranges from 7 June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 4 to 15 feet left of the fence but the property owner to the left claims the fence represents the property line. Mr. Paladini asked if the blacktop is a public or private street. Ms. Hiliner said the blacktop is a private drive aisle. Mr. Paladini said the legal description dictates the property line unless the dispute is otherwise settled by the court. Chairperson Ward asked if that will affect the variance request. Mr. Paladini said it could. Chairperson Ward stated the Board must consider the property lines as presented. Boardmember Knaack asked if a survey has been conducted. Ms. Hillner said the request has been going through the design review process and a survey was submitted as part of that process. She said, however, there was a dispute by the property owner to the south with regard to the property line and a request was made to the city to provide documentation that the property owner to the south agrees the property line is not the fence. She stated that written documentation was never submitted so the applicant decided to agree the property line is the fence line to allow his request to move forward. Boardmember Beck asked if the roadway belongs to the applicant, the city, or the property owner to the south. Ms. Hillner stated the roadway belongs solely to the applicant. Boardmember Gallegos asked if there would be sufficient space for the driveway if the existing buffer were maintained. Ms. Hillner responded no, explaining the applicant would have to relocate the driveway to the north. Boardmember Schroth asked how wide the existing road is. Ms. Hillner said approximately 24 feet. Boardmember Schroth asked what is the minimum standard drive width according to Fire Department standards. Ms. Hillner stated 20 feet, however, the Transportation Department looks for 24 feet for roadways expected to carry two-way traffic. Boardmember Beck asked why the applicant is required to provide the property for the roadway rather than having the roadway split between the two properties. Ms. Hillner explained the applicant has to provide access in order to develop the property, noting the property to the south is not being developed. Jim West, applicant, explained the applicant intends to develop the property for light industrial uses and his goal is to purchase the property to the south. He stated, had the applicant proceeded in the proper manner, he would have requested the proposed variances prior to beginning development. He said the request makes sense based on the existing development to the north and no one has expressed any concerns about their proposed development. With regard to landscaping along the southern boundary, he explained the applicant believes, and the survey of the property shows, that his parcel extends 15 feet on the other side of the fence. He said there is little chance that the applicant will gain that additional 15 feet through a quiet title action. He pointed out if both properties were zoned for industrial use a landscape buffer between the parcels would not be required. He stated, while the applicant acted in an inappropriate manner, the variances they are requesting would have been necessary had the applicant gone to the city prior to beginning development. June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Boardmember Beck pointed out the Board is not concerned with whether or not the applicant acted in an appropriate manner. Boardmember Gallegos asked if, in fact, a landscape buffer would not be required if the parcel to the south were zoned light industrial. Mr. West responded yes. Boardmember Knaack asked when was the fence built. Mr. West said almost two years ago. Boardmember Schroth asked about the zoning of the parcel to the south. Ms. Hillner said R1-6, noting the General Plan designates the property as Light Industrial. Boardmember Gallegos asked if any residents in the area, including the owner to the south, raised concerns about the variance request. Mr. West responded no. Vice-chair Dietzman asked if it appears the applicant will be able to purchase the property to the south in the near future. Mr. West was unable to say, stating it is not likely the property will be sold while the current owner, who is an elderly gentleman, is still alive. He said, once the owner passes away, they believe there is a good chance the property will be sold for light industrial use. Boardmember Schroth asked how much space lies between the cyclone fence and drive aisle. Mr. West responded four to five feet. Chairperson Ward asked Mr. West to explain in what way the applicant is relying upon the variance. Mr. West explained, upon approval of the variance, the applicant will be able to continue with the Design Review process. Vice-chairperson Dietzman asked if there are currently any tenants on the property. Mr. West said they have two tenants, an impound lot and an offsite construction office. Vice-chair Dietzman asked if there is a fair amount of traffic on the driveway. Mr. West responded no. Chairperson Ward opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Henry Rudzinski, 7235 West Vista Avenue, Glendale, explained he lives in the subdivision at the east end of the subject property. He disputed the applicant's claim that there is little traffic on the driveway, stating there is continual construction traffic coming from the property onto 73rd Avenue. He noted a number of people run the property to the south and there is no guarantee the applicant will be able to purchase the property once the current owner passes away. He stated the only notice he received on this item was the one he received about the Board of Adjustment hearing. He said his neighbor also found out about the matter when he received notice of the Board hearing. He said neither he nor his neighbor were approached by the applicant or asked their opinion. He stated, while he is not necessarily opposed to the request, he wants to make sure everything is in order before the applicant is given approval. He stated the road was paved, but in a piecemeal fashion. He pointed out an irrigation line runs down the fence line. June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Chairperson Ward asked about the notification area. Ms. Hillner stated the Citizen Participation Plan notification area included all properties within the area, however, it does not appear Mr. Rudzinski's address was included. Chairperson Ward asked if the city's notification area was larger than the applicant's. Ms. Hillner responded no, explaining the city used the applicant's mailing labels. Boardmember Knaack asked Mr. Rudzinski if he uses the driveway. Mr. Rudzinski responded no, stating he only traveled the road after receiving the notification in an attempt to understand the applicant's intention. He said he does not believe there is any public traffic on the driveway. Boardmember Schroth asked if the construction traffic comes out of the subject parcel. Mr. Rudzinski answered yes. Mr. West said, as difficult as the process has been, they are attempting to finalize development of the parcel. Chairperson Ward closed the public input opportunity. Chairperson Ward suggested they make individual motions for each variance. Boardmember Schroth said it appears the access road could be placed on the north side of the property and the fire lane on Parcel 6 Lot C could be turned into a joint use. Boardmember Knaack said it was her understanding the road on the south would move north. Ms. Hillner agreed. Boardmember Schroth asked if a fence will be installed along the south property line. Vice-chair Dietzman made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-02, Variance 1. Boardmember Beck SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth expressed concern about the unknown status of the property to the south. He said he would like to see a buffer between the two properties. Boardmember Gallegos said there appears to be at least some opportunity for a buffer between the properties. He said, regardless of what may happen in the future, the property to the south is currently zoned for residential. Vice-chair Dietzman agreed there should be a buffer, stating there are too many uncertainties at this time as to when that property might be zoned light industrial. June 9, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 7 Chairperson Ward said he is concerned that the property to the south might never be rezoned. He said approving the variance would be an injustice to whoever develops or lives on that property. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 1 to 6 (Boardmembers Burrell, Gallegos, Knaack,Dietzman, Schroth, and Ward voting nay). Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-02, Variance 2. Boardmember Knaack SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Ward opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Gallegos stated the existing fence is consistent with the line of sight and should remain where it is. Vice-chairperson Dietzman agreed. Chairperson Ward called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Ward called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Ward called for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Jacobs welcomed Boardmember Burrell. He recognized Chairperson Ward and Vice-chair Dietzman, thanking them for all of their hard work. Chairperson Ward called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Chairperson Ward stated it has been a pleasure to serve on the Board. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. low /, 71/(_e,tegi Sally M:ring, Recording Se ary