Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 7/14/2005 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,JULY 14, 2005 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Gallegos, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Moe Gallegos, Chairperson Yvonne Knaack, Vice-Chairperson Tommie Beck Sandy Burrell Hugh Leonardo Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, AICP, Zoning Administrator Jim Flenner, City Attorney Karen Stovall,Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Gallegos explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Gallegos called for approval of the June 9, 2005 minutes. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the June 9, 2005 meeting. Boardmember Knaack SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos called for Business from the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Gallegos asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Gallegos called for public hearing items. July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 2 APPLICATION NO.: VAR04-18 REQUEST: A request by James Leonard, representing Walter and Maureen Schmidt, for a variance to reduce the north side yard setback to 7'8" where 10' is required in the R1-6 (Single Residence) zoning district. The purpose of the variance is to permit a room addition. The property is located at 21112 North 70th Drive. Staff Contact: Karen Stovall (Cholla District). Ms. Stovall presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Schroth asked if any variances have previously been applied for and denied in the area. Ms. Stovall responded no. Walter Schmitt, applicant's representative, explained he is the current resident in the house and is disabled. He said he was hurt approximately 22 years ago and his insurance no longer covers rehabilitative medicine. He stated, as a result, he is relegated to doing exercises on his own and most of his equipment is located in the garage where it is too hot to exercise. He stated the proposed addition has not met with objection from the most affected landowner and the structure will be constructed by a licensed architect. He explained they cannot add onto the home to the rear because of the pool. He assured the Board the proposed addition will not create obstructions for those walking on the side of the house because more room will be left than is currently allocated on the left side of the residence. He said it is essential that he be able to continue his exercise program. Boardmember Beck asked if the room could be located behind the bedroom. Mr. Schmitt responded no, explaining the back wall is too close. Mr. Schmitt confirmed for Vice-chairperson Knaack that the garage is 10 feet from the side wall. He pointed out the proposed addition would not be visible from the front of the house. Boardmember Schroth said the garage appears to lie on the 10-foot side setback. Mr. Schmitt agreed. Boardmember Schroth asked if the applicant is asking to encroach another 2'4" into the setback. Mr. Schmitt responded yes. He said there will be approximately 61/2 feet of space between the proposed addition and the setback, pointing out the left side of the house has a five- foot setback. He explained a 10 by 18 foot room would be too small to accommodate his exercise equipment which includes a full set of rehabilitation parallel bars. Boardmember Schroth asked if a portion of the garage could be enclosed. Mr. Schmitt stated airflow issues would make it impossible to cool the garage adequately. He stated he also has a high-top van that cannot be left in the driveway pursuant to the Homeowners Association CC&Rs. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the neighbor to the north prefers the proposed location for the addition. Ms. Stovall responded yes, explaining they feared there would be more windows if it were built further toward the rear yard. Mr. Schmitt pointed out the neighbor to the north does not have any windows in the area where the addition would be built. July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Boardmember Burrell asked how long has the garage been used as an exercise room. Mr. Schmitt explained his father moves one of the cars out and moves the equipment into place when he wants to exercise, making it very inconvenient to exercise. Boardmember Schroth asked how many vehicles are parked in the four-car garage. Mr. Schmitt said one car and his high-top conversion van with a side-mounted lift. He stated his exercise equipment sits in the area between the two vehicles. Boardmember Schroth asked if the architect was unable to create a plan that would accommodate leaving the equipment in the garage. Mr. Schmitt responded yes, stating he would have to leave his vehicle outside which is prohibited by the CC&Rs. Boardmember Schroth said he finds it difficult to believe two vehicles and the exercise equipment cannot all be accommodated in the garage. Mr. Schmitt explained the header cannot be altered because it structurally supports the roof; therefore, the van cannot be accommodated in that area. Mr. Jacobs noted the HOA has not responded to staff's inquiry. He suggested similar requests will come in the future as people look for places to add space to their existing residences. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the opportunity for public input. Vice-chair Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR04-18, subject to the Site Plan date stamped March 7, 2005. Boardmember Beck SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Chairperson Gallegos pointed out the addition will be virtually invisible from the street. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 4 to 2 (Boardmembers Burrell and Schroth voted nay). APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-03 REQUEST: A request by John and Barbara Marsh for a variance to allow an 8' wall in the front yard where a maximum 3' is permitted in the R1-6 (Single Residence) zoning district. The purpose of the variance is to allow an existing courtyard wall to remain. The property is located at 4837 West Belmont Avenue. Staff Contact: Karen Stovall (Cactus District). Ms. Stovall presented the application, reviewing the site and request. July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Boardmember Leonardo asked if any past variance requests have been filed with regard to the original wall. Ms. Stovall responded no. Boardmember Burrell asked if any other variance requests have been made for walls of this size. Ms. Stovall answered not in this neighborhood. Vice-chair Knaack asked if there was a code against a 5-foot wall when the wall was constructed in 1984. Ms. Stovall said the zoning ordinance with regard to wall height in the front yard has not changed. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the majority of the wall is five foot high. Ms. Stovall said yes, stating the curved area at the end increases to eight feet. Boardmember Leonardo asked if Code Compliance ever took action against the five-foot wall. Ms. Stovall responded no. Boardmember Beck asked if staff is concerned about the archway or the entire wall. Ms. Stovall said they are concerned about the entire wall because it is all in excess of three feet in height. John Marsh, applicant, explained they moved to Glendale in 1976 and lost their privacy and security when the apartment complex was built on the lot to the rear of their property. He said he has made numerous complaints to the apartment complex's management about noise and trash being thrown into his yard. He stated it was then that they decided to build a wall in their front yard so they could use it rather than their backyard. He said the original wall was 57 inches and extended beyond the garage by about three feet. He explained he and his wife are very security conscious and have taken a lot of measures to enhance security. He noted, unlike many of their neighbors, they have not had any break-ins since they constructed the wall. He said the new wall does not yet have a security gate and they have already had items taken from their courtyard. He submitted pictures of homes located one block away that have similar walls. He stated he was never informed of any problem with the original wall. He said they intend to use desert landscaping in the front yard. Boardmember Leonardo asked if they have ever considered increasing the height of their rear wall. Mr. Marsh stated they have already increased the height of that wall, but it is still less than six feet. He said, unfortunately, a wall will not stop the late night parties or trash being thrown in their yard. Vice-chair Knaack asked if trees and other landscaping could have been used in the rear yard to help block the apartment complex. Mr. Marsh said they have shrubbery, but it only helps to a degree. Barbara Marsh, applicant, stated they completely redid their back yard when the apartment complex was constructed to better shield their property, but she still finds rotten food, paper and other trash in their yard. She said she has reported two fires caused by children playing with July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 5 matches, people smoke marijuana and a drug dealer was operating out of one of the apartments. She reiterated they were never informed of any problems with the wall. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Brian Lounsbury, 5009 West Kaler Drive, Glendale, expressed his opinion the city's action represents selective code enforcement, stating similar walls can be found throughout the neighborhood. He stated the wall does not hurt anyone and the applicant's efforts to improve his property have helped improve the neighborhood as a whole. Rafael Martinez, 5003 West Kaler Drive, Glendale, said he and other residents in the area have also worked to improve their homes and want to make sure the neighborhood is a good place to live. He stated he supports the variance and believes it will help beautify the neighborhood. He noted he has often thought he would like to construct a similar wall. He said he has called Code Compliance on other issues in the area, but nothing has been done. Carolyn Lounsbury, 5009 West Kaler Drive, Glendale, said she has a wall in front of their house for the same reason. She explained they complain to the city about many things in their neighborhood, but nothing ever gets done, stating that is why they feel compelled to construct the walls. Pat Heales, 4843 West Belmont Avenue, Glendale, said the applicant's wall and courtyard are very nice, noting she would do something similar if she could. She said it is impossible for them to use their backyards, stating she has witnessed young men smoking pot in the parking lot. She reported someone scaled her wall and stole her creepy-crawler from her pool. Chairperson Gallegos asked Ms. Stovall to comment on the pictures of other properties in the area. Ms. Stovall stated none of the property owners have applied for variances. Boardmember Beck said the walls do not appear to extend beyond the garage. Mr. Jacobs said the front wall is in front of the front plane of the house and the location of the garage has no bearing on the permitted height of the wall. He explained new construction in the area and the fact that the eight-foot wall height likely drew attention from Code Compliance. Mr. Marsh said they can accept it if the eight foot height is a problem, stating they could go back to a wall similar to the one they had before. He urged the Board not to lose sight of the importance of protecting privacy rights and making sure residents feel secure in their homes. He thanked his neighbors for their support, stating it came as a pleasant surprise. Boardmember Schroth asked if a licensed contractor constructed the wall. Mr. Marsh stated everyone who worked on the project is licensed, bonded, and insured. Boardmember Schroth asked if the licensed contractor was aware of the rules and regulations within the City of Glendale. Mr. Marsh said he is not sure, but had he been he is certain he would not have built the wall. He noted the person who issued the citation saw the project during construction but never stopped to inform them they were out of compliance. Boardmember Schroth asked if July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 6 security is the primary reason for the wall. Mr. Marsh said the new wall was constructed for security reasons and because the old wall was no longer safe. Boardmember Schroth complimented the applicant on the craftsmanship of the wall. Chairperson Gallegos closed the chance for public input. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-03, subject to the site plan date stamped April 13, 2005. Boardmember Burrell SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Gallegos called for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Jacobs recommended the Board consider changing the date of its September meeting from September 8 to September 15, explaining he will be out of town on the 8th. More than one boardmember indicated they would not be available on the 15th so staff agreed to find out if the room is available on either the 13th or 14th. Mr. Jacobs said a workshop session for the benefit of new members will also be held that evening. Mr. Jacobs stated the July 5 Council workshop concerning the Board of Adjustment appeals process resulted in Council direction to staff to amend the zoning ordinance to have appeals go directly to Superior Court. Chairperson Gallegos called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Boardmember Leonardo said he has questions about ramifications of decisions made by the Board. Boardmember Schroth explained he voted against the first item because, based on his engineering experience, he believes the garage has adequate space to accommodate an enclosed room. Boardmember Burrell said she voted against the motion for the same reason. Boardmember Beck disagreed; pointing out the conversion van alone takes up two vehicle spaces. Boardmember Schroth said he was actually happy the item passed, but he did not feel he could vote in favor of the motion. Boardmember Schroth asked if the applicant in the second case could request a variance for an eight-foot wall at the rear of their property given the commercial property behind them. Mr. Jacobs responded yes. July 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 7 As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. // / Sally - ling, Recording '-cretary