Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 11/10/2005 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 10, 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 Sandy Burrell Hugh Leonardo Michael Schroth BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Tommie Beck CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs, AICP, Zoning Administrator Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director Jon Paladini, Deputy City Attorney Karen Stovall,Planner Teresa Hillner, AICP, Senior Planner Willis Luttrell, Senior Planner MaryAnn Pickering, AICP, Senior Planner Thomas Ritz, AICP, Planner Sally Melling, Recording Secretary Chairperson Gallegos explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. Chairperson Gallegos called for approval of the October 13, 2005 minutes. Boardmember Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the October 13, 2005 meeting. Boardmember Leonardo SECONDED the MOTION. The motion PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos called for Business from the Floor. There was none. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Chairperson Gallegos asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Gallegos called for public hearing items. He pointed out an affirmative vote of four members is required to pass a waiver. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-19 REQUEST: A request by Maren Volkening for a variance to reduce the required 15-foot side setbacks to 5 feet to remodel an existing single-family dwelling and construct a room addition in the R-2 HP (Historic Preservation) District. The property is located at 5811 West Northview Avenue. Staff Contact: Willis Luttrell. (Ocotillo District). Continued from October 13, 2005 meeting) Mr. Luttrell presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Schroth pointed out the exhibits in the Board's packet are not date stamped October 27, 2005, asking if those are, in fact, the correct exhibits. Mr. Luttrell responded yes. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the original garage had a one-foot setback and the proposed addition has a five-foot setback. Mr. Luttrell answered yes. Maren Volkening, applicant, explained the variance is necessary to allow her to reconstruct and remodel the original home that was destroyed by fire. She said the house was originally constructed in 1929 on a narrow 50-foot wide lot at a time when the standards were different. She stated she intends to.keep the existing five foot setback on the east side and create a similar five foot setback on the west side of the house. She said they do not want to rebuild the garage, but did want to extend the kitchen toward the west and add a room to the rear of the home on the east side. She stated the new addition will be 360 square feet and the existing structure is 1,740 square feet, for a total of 2,100 square feet and a lot coverage ratio of 30 percent. She pointed out the five foot setback will be larger than the original 1.5 foot setback. She expressed her opinion their reconstruction of the house will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Lori Green, 5845 West Gardenia, Glendale, said the majority of neighbors neglected to attend the last Board meeting, but are in favor of the project. She suggested the Board add a stipulation restricting windows on the west side of the property or installing a block fence along the west side to protect the privacy of the neighbor on that side. Chairperson Gallegos noted Glenn Hickman and Russ Spencer submitted cards in support of the application, but chose not to address the Board. He closed the opportunity for public input. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Vice-chairperson Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-19, subject to the Site Plan date stamped October 27, 2005. Boardmember Leonardo SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Leonardo said he sees restoration of the property as a positive thing for the neighborhood and city. Vice-chair Knaack said she hopes to see the house on the Catlin Court tour in a few years. Chairperson Gallegos agreed with Boardmember Leonardo. He said he appreciates it when neighbors address the Board on a particular case, regardless of their position on the issue. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-18 REQUEST: A request by Marlene Betani of Gervasio & Associates, Inc. representing the STO Corporation for a variance to increase the maximum building height from 56 feet to 68 feet in the M-1 zoning overlay district in order to extend the height of an existing hopper to 68 feet high and construct a second hopper of equal height. The property is located at 6504 West Northern Avenue. Staff Contact: Willis Luttrell (Ocotillo District). Mr. Luttrell presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Marlene Betani, applicant's representative, said vertical expansion is the only way STO Corporation can expand its operation, which will, in turn, create more jobs and revenue for the city. She said the applicant keeps its property in good repair and is a good neighbor. She stated she does not believe there will be any negative impact on the surrounding neighbors. Chairperson Gallegos asked about the current hours of operation. Ms. Betani said they start around 6:30 a.m. and close around 5:00 p.m. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Boardmember Leonardo made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-18, subject to the Site Plan date stamped August 28,2005. Boardmember Schroth SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Vice-chair Knaack thanked the applicant for the enhanced photos, stating that without them, it would have been extremely difficult to visualize the request. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-21 REQUEST: A request by Cerreta Construction representing Tim and Janice Snow for variances to 1) reduce the front yard setback to 62'4" where 75' is required, 2) reduce the lot coverage to 20.6% where a maximum 10% is permitted in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The purpose of the variances is to allow the construction of a new house. The property is located at 6316 West Sweetwater Avenue. Staff Contact: Karen Stovall (Sahuaro District). Ms. Stovall presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Boardmember Leonardo asked if reduced front yard setbacks are common in the area. Ms. Stovall responded yes, stating several other variances have been granted and many of the existing non-conforming homes also have front yard setbacks of less than 75 feet. Boardmember Leonardo asked if the proposed square footage is average for the area. Ms. Stovall deferred the question to the applicant. Jonathan Cerreta, applicant's representative, said the subdivision was plotted in 1964 and annexed into the City of Glendale in 1984. He said their request is within the guidelines for SR-30 zoning district. He confirmed the proposed square footage is about average for the area. Boardmember Schroth asked how close is the home to the east. Mr. Cerreta said the zoning for SR-30 requires 15 feet; therefore he would estimate there to be 35 feet between the two homes. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Boardmember Burrell made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-21, subject to the site plan dated September 11,2005. Vice-chair Knaack seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth expressed his opinion the proposed house will help increase the value of surrounding homes. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 5 No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO: VAR05-26: REQUEST A request by Tom Clayton for a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks to 6 feet and 14 feet where 20 feet is required in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The property is located at the northeast corner of 55th Drive and Ocotillo Road (6701 North 55th Drive). Staff Contact: Teresa Hillner (Ocotillo District). APPLICATION NO: VAR05-27: REQUEST A request by Tom Clayton for a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks to 6 feet and 14 feet where 20 feet is required in the R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The property is located at the northeast corner of 55th Drive and Ocotillo Road (6705 North 55th Drive). Staff Contact: Teresa Hillner (Ocotillo District). Ms. Stovall presented the applications, reviewing the sites and requests. Tom Clayton, applicant, explained the houses, one of which burnt down prior to his purchasing the property, had become a haven for drug users. He said they have cleaned out the lots and are ready to build two single-family residences. He expressed his opinion the project will have a positive impact on the area. Boardmember Schroth thanked the applicant for the time and effort he has put into improving the properties and adding value to the community. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on Case Nos. VAR05-26 and VAR05-27. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearings. Boardmember Leonardo made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-26, subject to the site plan dated September 27,2005. Boardmember Burrell seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Vice-chair Knaack made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-27, subject to the site plan dated September 27,2005. Boardmember Schroth seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. No further comments were made. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-05 REQUEST: A request by Sean Lake, representing Wal-Mart Stores, for three variances in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The first request is to reduce the required landscape buffer where a non-residential use abuts a residential district from 15 feet to 13 1/2 feet. The second request is to reduce the required landscape buffer where a loading dock abuts a residential district from 25 feet to 13 1/2 feet. The final request is to reduce the required rear yard setback from 60 feet to 42 feet in order to construct the loading area at the rear of the proposed retail use. The property is the former Lucky grocery store at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue and Peoria Avenues (6645 West Peoria Avenue). Staff Contact: Maryann Pickering (Barrel District). Ms. Pickering presented the application,reviewing the site and request. Chairperson Gallegos asked about the intent behind Stipulation 2. Ms. Pickering explained staff decided to include the stipulation to ensure the neighborhood to the south would not be impacted by the loading dock. Boardmember Leonardo asked what is the height of the wall along the southern boundary of the property. Ms. Pickering said six feet, noting the wall is open block rather than solid block. Sean Lake, applicant's representative, said the building was originally designed and developed as a grocery store. He stated, in addition to three neighborhood meetings, they also met with the homeowners association to the south and went door to door to the south. He said the applicant will install a new eight foot wall and will live up to all of the representations they have made to the neighbors. He explained the applicant will move the south wall of the building further away from the property line and enclose the loading dock with a 10-foot screen wall. He said they will also more than double the existing landscaping, planting fuller trees on both sides of the wall. Boardmember Schroth asked if the entrance at the southwest corner could be cut in such a way as to create a larger buffer for the adjacent home. Mr. Lake explained the entrance is designed to allow trucks to back into the loading area. Boardmember Schroth suggested it would be easier for trucks to be in line with the entrance rather than the planter. Mr. Lake said the truck would then block the entryway. He offered to pull the entrance back as far as possible. Vice-chair Knaack stated cars will use the entrance as well, pointing out the median on 67th Avenue will require cars turning left into the shopping center to turn at that location. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 7 Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Jennifer Machamer, 10225 North 66th Lane, Glendale, said she represents the Chaparral Ranch I Homeowners Association, noting their neighborhood is directly south of the proposed store. She asked the Board to deny Wal-Mart's request to reduce the landscaped area between the loading dock and their property. She said, although Wal-Mart has agreed to build a fence that is as high as they would like, they feel a 25 foot landscape buffer is also needed to protect the neighborhood from noise and diesel odor associated with delivery vehicles. She pointed out Wal-Mart did not mention reducing the landscaped area at the neighborhood meeting, presenting documents presented by Mr. Lake at the meeting that show a different plan for the landscape buffer area. She said the residents were assured no changes would be presented at future public meetings and feel they have been deceived. She questioned the purpose behind the public meetings if inaccurate information is presented. Boardmember Schroth asked if the information presented by Wal-Mart indicated they would leave the 71/2 feet rear yard landscaping setback. Ms. Machamer said they have about 71/2 feet between their street and the existing wall. She said the city has a 25 foot buffer requirement for a reason and, while many of the residents are delighted Wal-Mart is coming to the area, they fear property values will decrease. She said the loading dock will essentially be in one of her neighbor's yards. Ms. Pickering clarified the detailed site plan shows 41 feet between the property line and the loading dock, with a 25-foot access driveway between the loading dock and the landscape buffer. Boardmember Schroth asked Ms. Machamer how long she has lived in her home. Ms. Machamer responded 19 years. Boardmember Schroth asked if Lucky's occupied the building during that time. Ms. Machamer responded yes, but explained their loading dock did not interfere with their neighborhood. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the current setback is less than the 25 feet proposed by the applicant. Ms. Machamer responded yes. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the Homeowners Association passed a resolution on the issue. Ms. Machamer explained Mr. Lake promised the moon, but did not mention the smaller setback. Mr. Lake agreed the applicant made many promises, stating they have made good on those promises by raising the height of the wall, increasing the landscaping, and replacing trees on both sides of the wall. He said they met with the Homeowners Association and it was his understanding they supported the applicant's request. He stated they are happy to continue to work with the neighbors, but believe the variances are necessary to allow the development to go forward. Boardmember Gallegos noted the first two letters were sent to over 900 residents, while the last letter was sent only to 350 residents. Mr. Lake explained the first two letters were sent to an expanded area that reached far beyond the traditional 300-foot notification area. He said they reached almost complete consensus after the second meeting; therefore, they sent notification of the third neighborhood meeting to only those who had attended the previous meetings as well as the required notification area. Boardmember Gallegos asked what led the applicant to believe they had support from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Lake said he made a presentation to November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 8 the Board at one of the member's homes, explaining they asked the members what they would like addressed to alleviate any concerns they had with the development. He stated the applicant agreed to all of the requests made by the Board and the mood seemed positive when the meeting adjourned. He noted he has received several calls from Board members and residents asking when redevelopment of the site would commence. Boardmember Schroth asked if the 28-foot driveway to the loading dock represents the minimum width required. Ms. Pickering explained the distance between the loading dock and landscape buffer is 25 feet; however, the minimum distance required is 23 feet. Boardmember Schroth asked if the applicant would consider reducing the width of the driveway to increase the distance between it and the property line. Mr. Lake said they will agree to the minimum width acceptable to the city's Engineering Department. Chairperson Gallegos asked how long has the building been vacant. Ms. Pickering was unable to say. Vice-chair Knaack estimated at least 10 years. Chairperson Gallegos closed the public hearing. Boardmember Leonardo made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-05, subject to the site plan dated September 15, 2005. Boardmember Burrell seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth suggested they add a stipulation that addresses the width of the roadway behind the loading dock. Vice-chair Knaack noted the two stipulations recommended by staff were not addressed in the motion. Boardmember Leonardo withdrew his motion and Boardmember Burrell withdrew her second. Boardmember Schroth made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-05, subject to the site plan dated September 15, 2005 as well as the two stipulations recommended by staff and a third stipulation reducing the width of the drive isle behind the loading dock to the minimum acceptable standard as determined by Engineering Department standards. Vice-chair Knaack seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth commended the residents and applicant for working together to ensure the long vacant property is finally redeveloped. Vice-chair Knaack encouraged the applicant to follow through on the promises made to the residents. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 9 Chairperson Gallegos said the proposed project sounds much better than what currently exists and he also encourages the applicant to hold true to its promises. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-09 REQUEST: A request by Tara Nichols, representing Habitat for Humanity, for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 14 feet where 20 feet is required and reduce the interior side yard setback to 10 feet where 20 feet is required in the R-4 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. The purpose of the variances is to allow the construction of a new home. The property is located at 6102 West Palmaire Avenue. Staff Contact: Thomas Ritz (Ocotillo District). Continued from October 13, 2005 meeting. Mr. Ritz presented the application, reviewing the site and request. Christine Odom, applicant's representative, noted Habitat for Humanity has built over 20 homes in the Ocotillo District. She said the subject lot is unique in its size and shape and the proposed variances are needed to allow a model to fit on the lot. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting for public comment on this case. Bonnie Ott, 6106 West Palmaire Avenue, Glendale, said the proposed setback variance will cut off her view as well as the view from all the other homes that are set back 33 feet. She submitted pictures to the Board. She also asked if the applicant will build a wall between the properties. Ms. Odom said they traditionally only install a fence in the back yard. Boardmember Schroth pointed out the corner of the house will actually be 10 feet off the 20-foot setback. He asked Ms. Ott if that fact helps alleviate her concern. Ms. Ott responded yes. Chairperson Gallegos closed the public hearing. Boardmember Burrell made a MOTION to APPROVE VAR05-09, subject to the site plan dated September 22,2005. Boardmember Schroth seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 10 Boardmember Schroth thanked Habitat for Humanity for their application and Ms. Ott for addressing the Board. He expressed his opinion the project represents an improvement to the neighborhood. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-06 REQUEST: A request by Barbara Betastegui, RNL Design, representing the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, for a variance in the R1-6 (Single Residence) Zoning District to allow a maximum building height of 50 feet where 30 feet is the maximum building height permitted. The purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new worship auditorium at an existing church. The property is located at 5260 West Peoria Avenue. Staff Contact: Thomas Ritz (Barrel District). Continued from October 13, 2005 meeting. Chairperson Gallegos commented on the number of issues surrounding the item, explaining the Board is limited to consideration of the variance request before it. Mr. Froke agreed, stating a future Planning and Zoning hearing will address use, traffic, parking, lighting, and landscaping issues. Mr. Ritz presented the application,reviewing the site and request. Chairperson Gallegos asked if any of the six buildings mentioned by staff as exceeding the city's height standard are churches. Mr. Ritz said the buildings in the immediate area are not churches, however, churches north of Peoria Avenue exceed the height limitation. Boardmember Schroth asked if the other churches went through the variance process. Mr. Ritz said the church at 59th Avenue and Cactus did, however, the Community Church of Joy went through the master plan process as a Planned Area Development. Boardmember Leonardo asked if the other churches were located in R1-6 zoned areas. Mr. Ritz said the church at 59`h Avenue and Cactus is and the property north of the Community Church of Joy is in the process of being rezoned for single-family residential development. Dick Sheffer, applicant's representative, noted, in addition to the neighborhood meeting, the applicant held a meeting last week with four of the neighbors along Desert Cove to discuss specific issues. He explained the existing property includes an existing worship center, a youth building, and an administration and children's education building. He stated there are also about 650 parking spaces accessed through two access drives off Peoria and one off of 63`d Avenue. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 11 He stated a six-foot masonry wall separates the church's property and the back of the Desert Cove properties. He explained the applicant's long-term plan calls for a 2,300 seat worship center, an expanded Children's Education building, a small Compassion Ministry and Facility Maintenance building, and a Family Life Center. He said the total property would have 1,410 parking spaces and one additional access point would be located at the north edge of 63rd Avenue. He stated the initial plan is to build the 68,000 square foot worship center, the Compassion Ministry and Facility Maintenance building, and the first wing of the Children's Education building. He said they would have 945 parking spaces during the first phase of development and pave the remainder of the parking lot as the rest of development occurs. He said about 50,000 square feet of the 68,000 square foot Worship Center exceeds the 30-foot height limitation. Mr. Sheffer showed various renderings of the project, stating the applicant is trying to avoid the appearance of a big box development. He stated they will install extensive landscaping, including two rows of ornamental trees along the perimeter of the ring road. He said they also propose landscaping along the north and east property lines now so it has a chance to secure before the rest of the site is developed. He explained the height of the building is driven by the need for quality acoustics and sight lines. He stated the building is 45 feet to the roofline, explaining the side panels which are intended to provide architectural interest account for the remaining five feet. Mr. Sheffer reported a Conditional Use Permit was approved by the city in 1997 which called for the entire church campus to be in the center of the site surrounded by parking. He said the plan had a building height of 30 feet and 1,425 parking spaces with two entries off Peoria and two off 63rd Avenue. He stated the sight line angle from the six foot perimeter fence along the north to the church would have been less than 10 percent, noting the original building actually blocks more than the proposed 50 foot high building because the proposed building is located 200 feet further away. Boardmember Schroth asked if his picture of the south section of the site represents the actual typography of the site. Mr. Schroth said the property is basically flat. Boardmember Schroth pointed out the property itself is elevated considerably in relationship to Peoria and 63rd Avenue. He asked if the pad for the new auditorium is at the same elevation as the homes on Desert Cove. Mr. Sheffer responded yes. Boardmember Schroth asked if the conceptual grading for the parking lot flows from the northeast corner to the retention area in the southwest. Mr. Sheffer said that has not yet been designed, however, that is the natural flow. Chairperson Gallegos asked Mr. Sheffer how they came to meet with the four neighbors last week and what was the outcome of the meeting. Mr. Sheffer explained the church contacted the neighbors along the north property line. He noted they contacted everyone they knew who had sent letters in opposition. Mr. Sheffer said the purpose was to get their feedback and to open a dialogue. He stated, while there was some discussion about height, the primary issue was the buffer between the property line and the edge of the parking lot. He stated they also discussed noise, lights, fumes, and increased traffic. He said they asked what would satisfy the neighbors and found increasing the buffer appeared to be the best solution. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 12 Chairperson Gallegos asked why the 50-foot height is important to the function of the auditorium. Mr. Sheffer explained the height is a factor of the number of people and the ability to achieve good sight lines and good acoustics. He said once a person is beyond 90 feet from the platform it becomes difficult to see the speaker so newer designs utilize stadium seats. He said two catwalks will hold sound equipment and lights and large projection screens will be used to increase visibility for those in the back. He stated the suggestion was made to lower the building below grade. He said the proposed building is about 31/feet below grade, but the equipment and props that are brought into the building require the stage to be located at grade level. He said they are also required to have eight exit points out of the side walls, making it less than practical to push the building any further below grade. Chairperson Gallegos opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Daniel DeBaun, 6608 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, said he is in favor of the project. He stated his property will not be hindered by the increased height. In response to Boardmember Schroth's question, Mr. DeBaun indicated the location of his house. He said he questioned why people were complaining of traffic in their areas when they are not located on a through street. He stated they discussed with the applicant the possibility of restricting the northernmost exit onto 63rd Avenue to right-turns and restricting the one closer to Peoria to left turns only. Tom Hensley, 6119 West Desert Cove, Glendale, stated he purchased his house new and was happy to have the church move in. He said, however, every time they see the plan for the church it seems to change. He stated 50 feet is a considerable height and the parking lot will eventually be up to his back wall. He pointed out there are no neighborhoods around Station 57 or the church at 59t'' Avenue. He said the proposed church is much too large and he is strongly opposed to the variance. Robert Albury, 6139 West Mescal, Glendale, expressed his opinion the proposed project is not in character with the residential neighborhood. He said the church does not need to offer one service for 2,300 people, noting most churches run several smaller services throughout the day. He said traffic when the service lets out will resemble that on I-17. He questioned how the project will benefit the neighborhood. Larry Flatau, 6107 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, submitted a petition from residents on Desert Cove and on the street to the north of Desert Cove. He said Mr. Kohler, who sat on the original Board that approved the variance, is now very opposed to the proposed variance. He explained he is the Senior Project Manager for the world's largest engineering firm leading construction and design teams on multi-million dollar projects. He said he has also served as the Director of Facilities Engineering for the State of Arizona's Army National Guard structures and holds multiple degrees in engineering and environmental science. He said he is more than capable of reading the applicant's plans, elevations, specifications, and zoning requirements. He stated the applicant wants to construct a 50-foot high, 2,300 seat, 68,100 square foot building on the lot. He said, while the people who signed the petition are not opposed to the church, they are November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 13 opposed to the proposed configuration. He stated he is stunned by the Planning staff's analysis and conclusion, expressing his opinion the only special condition that exists on the property is the R1-6 zoning and the applicant's desire to build a performing arts center in a residential neighborhood. He said the typography, size, and shape of the subject property are similar to almost any other 33-acre plot of land in the City of Glendale. He stated the Board must find that the zoning ordinance restricts one property more severely than any other property. He said there are no other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district that enjoy the privileges requested by the applicant. He said granting of the variance would constitute a granting of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the zoning district. He submitted photographs of the three churches referred to in staff's Findings of Fact, stating none asked for 50 feet in height and only one was granted a height variance of 45 feet to allow for a steeple on the 28 foot high church. He stated the church on 59th Avenue at Brown has a sloped roof,with the highest point being 45 feet, noting the proposed church is more than 2.25 times larger than that facility. He offered to provide documentation supporting his position if the Board so desires. He stated the Glendale Nazarene Church is 48,827 foot structure with a hip-roof. Mr. Paladini advised Mr. Flatau he has exceeded the five minutes allotted to speakers. Mr. Flatau said the applicant has been given an opportunity to speak and he would like the same opportunity. Chairperson Gallegos explained many people want to address the Board as well. Mr. Flatau said the variance is out of line with the requirements of the city. He stated the Glendale Nazarene Church is 30,000 square feet smaller, but able to expand to 2,500 people. He said the applicant could design the structure to allow them to seat 2,300 people without the need for the extended height. He said, upon review of the variance criteria, the Board cannot help but come to the conclusion that the variance does not meet the requirements. Kathleen Flatau, 6107 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, said the Board has to find that granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining properties, the surrounding neighborhood or the city in general. She disagreed with staff's conclusion that "this request does not appear to be detrimental to any neighboring properties." She said traffic impacts have been downplayed, expressing her opinion the arrival and departure of 1,431 cars at the change of service will create chaos. She stated exhaust fumes from nearby vehicles will create hazardous health issues. Boardmember Burrell reminded the speakers that the issue before the Board is limited to the height variance. Ms. Flatau explained the size of the building and the number of people it is intended to attract will have a negative impact on the community. She said other issues, such as traffic impacts and pollution, will be addressed at the Planning Commission. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 14 Darren Reale, 6201 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, asked the Board to deny the requested variance, stating it will greatly reduce the view he currently enjoys. He stated the building can be constructed at a lower height. Ed Christ, 6114 West Desert Cove, Glendale, said he is opposed to the variance because he believes a 50-foot building height is inappropriate for the site. He said the Glendale Adult Center towers over the homes in the surrounding area and can be seen from two blocks away, noting it is only 42 feet high. He pointed out the area was originally zoned for residential with a maximum height of 20 feet. He said the church was granted a variance to go up to 30 feet for a steeple at the far corner of the property and is now coming back requesting a building height of 50 feet. He asked the city to deny the variance. Stacy Christ, 6114 West Desert Cove, Glendale, stated when she purchased her property the subject property was zoned for Single Family Homes. She said the plan later changed to allow a church and changed again to allow for the steeple. She said the applicant is now requesting yet another change, increasing the building height to 50 feet. She stated, while they may have initially been swayed by the large buffer, they do not want a five story building in their neighborhood. She said the church understood they were moving into an established neighborhood with a height restriction of 20 feet and should have planned more appropriately if their goal was to build a five-story building. She said the buildings referenced by staff as having similar height variances are not, in fact, similar to the situation at hand. She stated the churches are not surrounded by neighborhoods and occupy space that is surrounded by commercial or school property. She said the heights listed for those churches indicate their highest peaks, not the roofline of the buildings. She stated Home Depot far exceeded their expectations when they moved into the neighborhood, however, the church is going back on their word to do things to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood. She described the situation as being similar to having Phoenix Symphony Hall located in their front yard, stating she believes it will hurt the value of her home. As a side note, she said, if approved, Cooperwood Elementary School would appreciate free access to the auditorium. John Becker, 6207 West Desert Cove, Glendale, asked if he could give his time to allow Mr. Flatau to finish his comments. Jon Paladini, City Attorney, explained, regardless of the number of people on whose behalf a person speaks, the speaker is still limited to five minutes. Mr. Becker expressed his opinion the proposed project will have a detrimental effect on surrounding property values. Deborah Becker, 6207 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, agreed her property value will be negatively impacted by a 50-foot building. She said she does not know if she will want to continue to live in her house once the building is constructed, stating potential buyers will likely share her concerns. She expressed her opinion the applicant's photo does not do justice to the actual height of the building. Don Yevin, 6113 West Desert Cove, Glendale, echoed the concerns of those who spoke before him, stating he opposes the height variance. He said the proposed project does not represent November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 15 what was originally intended when the church was first approved in 1997. He stated the proposed project is a dramatic departure from the single family residential development they anticipated when they purchased their home. Debbie Albury, 6139 West Mescal Street, Glendale, said she is very opposed to the height variance. She said the applicant must have had plans to build a church as large as the one being proposed when they purchased the property, asking why they did not buy land in a more appropriate area. Greg Consolo, 6137 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, said he is also opposed to the height variance and believes 50 feet is much too high. He stated he welcomed the church when they moved in because he was initially concerned that a two-story house would be built right behind his property. Denise Perry, 6220 West Desert Cove Avenue, Glendale, said she can already see the church from her upstairs window and her view will be even more dramatically impacted if the proposed variance is approved. She said the increased parking area will increase the number of lights. She noted she already has to wait five minutes to cross the street when walking through her neighborhood due to the increased traffic from the church. She said the amount of trash is also unbelievable. She stated she is very opposed to the height variance and she does not believe the church has been a very honest neighbor. Boardmember Schroth asked if the rear property lines of the homes on the south side of Desert Cove are lower than the church property. Ms. Perry clarified the ground level where the existing church structures are located is higher than the street where her house is located. Mr. Sheffer, applicant's representative, said, when they started their design, the church requested that the building be kept away from the neighborhood. He said they could have put a 30-foot building 50 or 100 feet away from the north property line, but the church chose to locate the campus in its present location so as to minimize the impacts on the neighborhood. He stated, while he respects the neighbors and their opinions, the impact of the building will actually be less than the existing 30 foot high building because it will be located 570 feet away. He requested the Board's approval, expressing his opinion the proposed design minimizes the impacts to everyone concerned. Boardmember Schroth asked what is the height of the existing building. Mr. Sheffer said 30 feet is the high point. Boardmember Schroth asked if the new worship center will be at the same pad elevation as the existing buildings. Mr. Sheffer responded yes. Boardmember Schroth asked if it is true that the church pad is elevated above the street where the homes are located. Mr. Sheffer disagreed. He admitted the church is and will continue to be visible from a second story window, stating they took their sight lines from six feet above grade level. Boardmember Schroth asked if the northwest corner of the property is higher than the outfall. Mr. Sheffer answered yes, explaining they intend to push the grade down slightly in the northwest. He reiterated the concrete panels on the side of the building will extend to 50 feet and that the actual roof height is 45 feet. Boardmember Schroth asked if the applicant has considered other options November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 16 that would allow the height of the building to be reduced. Mr. Sheffer said they looked at depressing the building further, lowering the roof, and removing the panels; however, each option had their own set of disadvantages. Mr. Jacobs clarified there are no previous variances on the property and the R1-6 zoning district allows churches through a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Gallegos closed the opportunity for public input. Boardmember Schroth said he understands both sides of the issue and is having a hard time deciding which way to vote. He expressed his opinion the Board has not been presented with enough information to determine the extent of the height of the building at 50 feet as it relates to the existing conditions. He stated the existing buildings are above the intersection of 63rd Avenue and Peoria and it would have been nice to see the relationship between the Desert Cove Street elevation and the elevation of the pad. Boardmember Burrell agreed, stating she does not feel they have adequate information about sight lines. She said the height of the pad itself has a significant impact on the visual impact of a 50-foot building. Chairperson Gallegos asked if the pad elevation issue can be clarified. Mr. Sheffer offered to gather more information about the precise elevations, noting they had considered floating balloons and taking photographs so the Board can see exactly the height of the proposed building. Mr. Paladini explained the impact on the neighborhood is one of four criteria to be considered. He suggested the Board decide if the three other criteria have been met before determining whether or not to ask the applicant to gather more information. Vice-chair Knaack expressed her opinion Finding 3 has not been met, stating she does not believe a property hardship exists. She said the need for the variance could be eliminated if the design of the building was altered to reduce the height to 30 feet or less. Boardmember Leonardo stated he does not feel the applicant has done the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship. Chairperson Gallegos agreed with Vice-chair Knaack. He said, regardless of the pad elevation, he believes the project will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. Boardmember Burrell pointed out at least three Board members do not feel Finding Three has been met, therefore Finding Four is basically irrelevant. Boardmember Schroth suggested they ask the applicant to come back with additional information regarding elevations. November 10, 2005 Board of Adjustment Page 17 Boardmember Leonardo agreed, commenting the Board wants to do what is best for the applicant as well as the neighbors. Boardmember Schroth suggested the Board would be setting a precedence. Mr. Paladini clarified the Board of Adjustment does not create a precedence from a legal standpoint because each case is considered on its own merits. Mr. Jacobs recommended they continue the case until the Board's January 2006 meeting. Chairperson Gallegos asked if only the members present at tonight's meeting would be able to hear the case at the January meeting, pointing out the Board is scheduled to have two new members in January. Mr. Paladini recommended new members abstain from participating on the item since they did not have the opportunity to hear the evidence. Vice-chair Knaack made a MOTION to CONTINUE VAR05-06 to the Board's January 12, 2006 public hearing. Boardmember Burrell seconded the motion. Chairperson Gallegos opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Schroth assured the audience it is the Board's intention to do the best job it can. No further comments were made. Chairperson Gallegos called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairperson Gallegos called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Gallegos called for the Planning Staff Report. No report was made. Chairperson Gallegos called for Board Comments and Suggestions. Chairperson Gallegos asked when discussion on an item should take place, before or after a motion has been made. Mr. Jacobs said it has happened both ways in the past. Mr. Paladini expressed his opinion it would be better to have the discussion prior to the motion, noting the members are still free to explain their vote once a motion is made. Mr. Jacobs said it is ultimately the Chairperson's prerogative. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ✓_ // // Sally "ening,Recording Se etary