Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 3/13/2008 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Burrell called the regular meeting to order at approximately 7:01 p.m. and explained the Board's policies and procedures. Chairperson Burrell conducted Roll Call with the following results: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandy Burrell, Chairperson Hugh Leonardo, Vice Chairperson William Barker Al DeLossa Moe Gallegos Jim Ligon Peter McCormick BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF: Maryann Pickering, AICP, Interim Zoning Administrator Russ Romney, Assistant City Attorney Remigio Cordero, Planner Lisa Hunt, Senior Secretary Chairperson Burrell asked staff if there were any requests for Withdrawals or Continuances. Ms. Maryann Pickering, AICP, Interim Zoning Administrator, stated that there were none. Chairperson Burrell explained the public hearing procedures. AGENDA ITEM: 1. VAR07-15: A request by Michael Kitchen with Margrave Celmins P.C. representing the property owner, Monica Vasquez, for a variance in the R1-10 (Single Residence) zoning district to reduce both the northwest side-yard setback to zero feet and the separation requirement between March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 structures to zero feet where ten feet is required. The property is located at 6351 West Crocus Drive. Staff Contact: Remigio Cordero (Sahuaro District). Mr. Remigio Cordero, Planner, presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He reported that the applicant had sent 95 notification letters to the adjacent property owners and interested parties. He stated four emails were received as well as two telephone calls in opposition. He stated that some interested parties had complained of not being notified in time. He explained the four findings and stated the variance can have a potentially detrimental effect on the property because it was constructed without the proper plan review and building permits. He noted that the city's Building Safety Department stated several issues that needed to be resolved in order to deem the carport structurally safe. In addition, granting this variance creates a potential precedence for other properties to request zero foot side-yard setback and separation requirements that may cause safety issues. He stated that the variance request does not meet the required four findings. Therefore, staff recommends that the variance be denied. If the Board decides to grant the variance it should be subject to the site plan date-stamped October 10, 2007. He added that within thirty days from the date of this hearing, if the variance is to be approved the applicant shall submit construction plans to the City of Glendale Community Development Department. Chairperson Burrell called for questions from the Board. Boardmember Leonardo asked Mr. Cordero to outline the safety issues in question. Mr. Cordero stated that the issues were the load capacity of the roof adjoining the posts. He added that it would need to pass the city's building inspection. Boardmember Gallegos asked if the carport size needed to be reduced and placed at another location on site. Mr. Cordero stated that the carport would need to be reduced in scale and then replaced to meet the required setbacks. Boardmember Gallegos inquired as to the response to the notification letters sent by the applicant. He stated that in their informational packets it was stated that no responses were received. He asked how long the waiting period was for notification responses when the applicant sends out letters. Mr. Cordero said that the waiting period was 15 business days. He added that after that part of the notification was completed,the Planning Department also notifies the interested parties three more times with: site notification, postcards and newspaper notification. Boardmember Gallegos inquired if it was known what had caused the delay in notification response. Mr. Cordero stated that he was not sure, however, believes that possibly it was a delay in mail. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 Boardmember Leonardo asked for clarification on the mailings. He asked if they had received responses only when the city had notified the surrounding residents. Mr. Cordero responded, yes. Boardmember DeLossa asked how the city knew when and if the applicants send out notification letters. Mr. Cordero explained that it was reported and filed in their final Citizen Participation Plan report. Ms. Pickering interjected for clarification that the city's mailing had resulted in the city receiving one letter that was returned as undeliverable. Boardmember Ligon asked if it was known if the applicant had any contact with the Planning Department before the building was constructed. Mr. Cordero responded that there was no record of any contact of any kind. Chairperson Burrell called for questions or comments from the Board of staff. As there were none, she called the applicant forward to make their presentation. Mr. Michael Kitchen, Attorney with Margrave Celmins P.C., 8171 East Indian Bend Road, Scottsdale, applicant's representative, stated his request for approval of this variance. He explained that in this neighborhood there were a number of similar side carports currently in existence. He provided photographs of the area to show the many carports that were also not in total compliance. Chairperson Burrell stated to the applicant that if he provided those to the Board that they would not be returned and would become a permanent part of the record. Chairperson Burrell asked if the photographs were of the applicant's property or of others. Mr. Kitchen stated that the photographs were of the surrounding area to show that the applicant's carport was not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He added that side carports were very common in this neighborhood and that the applicant's carport was in no way inconsistent nor does it adversely impact the neighborhood. He said that the applicant had sought a carport similar to the ones in her area. He said that the applicant, Ms. Monica Vasquez, had taken great care to construct the carport in a safe, solid and attractive manner. He explained that the applicant will be happy to address any safety issues as well as anything that will adversely impact any adjoining property owners. He stated that the critical issue today was not the safety issue, but rather if the setbacks are to be adjusted. He said that this carport was very well constructed and carefully designed to fit well with the area. He added that it was much more attractive than many of the other carports. He apologized for the applicant not obtaining the required permits earlier, and added that Ms. Vasquez was unaware of their importance. He said that Ms. Vasquez had spent a great deal of time and money to build this structure to fit in well with the neighborhood. He presented several letters of support from neighbors in the area. He read the four findings and stated that Ms. Vasquez's carport was not detrimental to the area in regards to location, size or setbacks currently used by surrounding neighbors. He stated that he disagreed with staff's findings that there was a more suitable location for the carport's required setbacks. He stated that for the reasons set forth, he request the approval of the variance. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4 Chairperson Burrell asked for any comments or questions. Boardmember DeLossa stated that by looking at the photograph it was not clear how a vehicle got into the carport. Mr. Kitchen explained. Chairperson Burrell commented that in some of the pictures presented, it seemed that most of the structures were temporary and could be taken down fairly easily. Mr. Kitchen stated that some of them were and some were not. Chairperson Burrell asked Mr. Kitchen if it was safe to assume that most of the structures shown were temporary. Mr. Kitchen stated he believed all but two were temporary, although he had not personally checked them. Boardmember DeLossa asked who had taken the pictures of the surrounding area. Mr. Kitchen stated that the applicant had taken pictures within an area of approximately a two block radius. Boardmember DeLossa commented that there were no visible addresses found on the pictures, therefore how do they know these were of the surrounding neighborhoods? Mr. Kitchen reiterated that Ms. Vasquez had indeed taken pictures within a two block radius. Boardmember Ligon asked if the applicant was aware that it was required to have a separation between the carport and the house. Mr. Kitchen stated that Ms. Vasquez was now aware of that fact and added that if the Board was to examine the area, they would find many parking structures which do not meet all the requirements. Boardmember Ligon commented that he personally had been out to the site and had found no structures to match this carport in the immediate area. Boardmember Gallegos asked for clarification on the positive letters provided to the Board. He inquired as to why they had not been introduced earlier since they had an April correspondence date. Mr. Kitchen stated that those letters were obtained by the applicant during the time prior to the official variance being requested. He said that there had been communication between Mr. Cordero and himself and those letters had been attached to their correspondence. Chairperson Burrell commented that she appreciated the great effort made by Mr. Kitchen to specify the beauty of the structure, however, as indicated by the ordinance, this was not about the beauty of a structure or if two neighbors were in support or not, but rather about protecting the property value of the entire city. She added that with respect to finding number one, Mr. Kitchen had indicated there were special circumstances that were not self imposed in regards to lot size. Chairperson Burrell explained that when topography issues arise, it usually relates to the size of the lot being so small that a variance would need to be issued. However, that does not appear to be the case in this situation. She said that the structure appears to be a very large structure and not at its minimum according to the measurements and the city. The structure seems to be very large, even in comparison to the largest structure provided in the pictures and that structure appears to be temporary. Mr. Kitchen stated that Chairperson Burrell brought up some good points. He stated that he wanted to make one point very clear; should the Vasquez family be required to take down the March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 structure, it would cause significant hardship to the family. He said that the family had spent a very substantial amount of money creating the structure. He noted that unfortunately, they had not followed proper procedures prior to the construction. He explained that what they were dealing with now was what to do with this structure and whether any inconsistency with the zoning requirements would be best served by tearing down the structure or making some sort of a variance requirement. He proposed that based on the quality of the structure and the surrounding area, this structure adds value to the neighborhood. He said that under those circumstances, demolishing the structure would not serve the city or the neighborhood's best interest. Boardmember DeLossa asked if there was a two car garage at the site. Mr. Kitchen stated that there is a three-car garage and the carport serves to house an RV. Boardmember DeLossa commented that in the photographs it seemed that many cars were owned by the family. He asked if a single family resided on the premises. Mr. Kitchen stated that he was correct. Chairperson Burrell commented that the Board acts independently on each variance and precedence really do not come into effect in their decision. She added that if another neighbor has a similar structure, it was not taken into account when making a decision. She asked if an architect was used for creating this structure because it appears quite expensive. Mr. Kitchen stated that the father had some construction experience and was the builder. Chairperson Burrell asked if there was a reason why they did not seek the assistance of the city and obtain the required permits before spending a substantial amount of money. Mr. Kitchen explained that unfortunately, they were not aware of the significance and the appropriateness of obtaining these types of requirements before beginning construction. Boardmember DeLossa asked the applicant how long had they resided at this location. The applicant answered that they had lived there for four years. Mr. Kitchen stated that he would like to present an important point. Although he agrees that precedence was not necessarily an issue in this case, the primary reason the Planning Department is opposed to this variance request is that they are concerned this will create precedence for some future issue. However, he agrees with Chairperson Burrell that each variance should be addressed on its own merits. He added that this variance will benefit the city and the neighborhoods while others in current existence may not. Boardmember Ligon asked if there was a wall next to the carport. Mr. Kitchen stated that there was. Boardmember Ligon commented that the wall was too close and could be a hazard for fire and safety to the applicant's property and the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Kitchen stated that any safety issue would be addressed and modified by the applicant who is willing to work with the city. Boardmember Gallegos commented that he would like to hear the applicant attest to the photos taken. Chairperson Burrell stated that the applicant may speak in their final statements. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 Chairperson Burrell opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Charles Rogers, residing at 6319 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, stated that he really had no problem with the structure because it was constructed very nicely; however, the area pictures presented today were of a neighborhood west of their neighborhood. He reiterated that he really had no problem should they grant this variance; however it would set precedence. He added that he personally has an awning that was previously restricted in size by the city and should this variance move forward, he would also like to build larger, including zero lot line. Boardmember Gallegos asked Mr. Rogers if he knew where the pictures were taken. Mr. Rogers stated that he believes it was the next section over. He added that they might have been taken in the area but not in their section of neighborhood. Boardmember McCormick commented that one of the pictures did have a street sign that read an address of 6300 West Cortez. Mr. Rogers stated that 6300 West Cortez would be far south of their neighborhood between Sweetwater and Cactus. Chairperson Burrell commented that it was quite a ways south. Mr. Rodgers commented that there were at least two structures not regulation in their neighborhood and always wondered how they were allowed. Mr. Stephen F. Gabor, residing at 6366 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, stated that he lives just north of the applicant. He said that he has known the Vasquez family since they moved in four years ago and approves of the structure. He said that the pictures really do not do the structure justice and added that it was a very well done piece of construction which matches the home site and the surrounding buildings in the area. He believes that this would not be an eyesore or a determent to the area. He said that this carport had been up for eight or nine months and no one had complained on his side of the street. He noted that there were other structures in the area with greater issues. Mr. Charles Rogers, residing at 6319 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, returned to clarify an issue. He spoke to the clearance between the homes. He said that every house in the neighborhood had a minimum combined clearance of 24 feet from each side of the homes with about 10 feet on one side and 14 feet on the other. He noted that these homes were fairly wide spread. Boardmember DeLossa and Mr. Rogers had a discussion on the setback and clearances with regards to the carport. Mr. Kevin Hazen, residing at 6358 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, stated that he lives across from the applicant and would like to reiterate Mr. Gabor's statements that the carport was very well constructed and added value to the neighborhood. He noted that the neighbor to the west was in full support of the structure even without the required clearance between their homes. He added that they were great neighbors and believes it would be an undue hardship on the family, financially,to demolish the structure. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7 Ms. Shirley Farrell, residing at 6364 West Redfield Road, Glendale, stated that she lived one house to the west of the applicant. She said that she did not have a problem with the structure; however, she did have a problem with this setting precedence in the neighborhood. She said that this was a very large structure and could be seen from her back yard. She noted that they did not have an HOA and if they did, this would have never gone through; therefore, the community depends on the city to supervise the building codes and requirements. She said that there are other structures similar to this one just west of the neighborhood, however, most were temporary and could be taken down. She asked the Board to decide this matter based on the building codes. Ms. Pam Hazen, residing at 6358 West Crocus Drive, Glendale, stated that she wanted to clarify the issue of the temporary carports in the area. She explained that she has lived in the area for eight years and can attest to the fact that those structures have never been taken down or improved in anyway. She stated that the structure built by the Vasquez family actually brings value to the community unlike the so called temporary structures. Boardmember DeLossa commented that he was having a difficult time making a decision because on the one hand, the structure was not in compliance and if approved, it did set precedence; however, he felt sympathetic to the family. He suggested possibly tabling this item for a later time after meeting with the Planning Commission and correcting some of the issues. Chairperson Burrell commented that as a Board they can decide to continue this item for a later date if they so determine. She noted that before determining any decision, they would need to listen to all the facts in evidence as well as any questions for staff and the city attorney. Boardmember DeLossa commented that the Board will have three options when considering a decision. Chairperson Burrell stated that he was correct. Boardmember Gallegos commented that should the Board decide to continue this item, they would need to be sure of all the evidence in question and if granting a continuance would be beneficial to the city and applicant. After stating such, he apologized and excused himself for a few moments. Chairperson Burrell explained the procedure after the public meeting is closed. She stated that the Board will discuss the issues surrounding this variance in front of the public. She added that unless there is an issue that is so pressing that we really need to ask for a continuance, that's something we can discuss as a Board. Chairperson Burrell asked Mr. Cordero to present his closing comments. Mr. Cordero reiterated that the applicant did not meet the four findings and staff recommends for this variance to be denied. Chairperson Burrell commented to Mr. Cordero that in all her years on the Board, she had never seen another case that did not make any of the four findings. Mr. Cordero agreed. Ms. Pickering addressed the carport photos that were provided. She stated that staff did not know the status of those carports. They might have been constructed illegally or built under another building ordinance that allowed them to be closer to the property line or to the residence. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8 She added that in regards to the temporary parking structures that possibly were not permitted; they will eventually get cited by code compliance when the city does a sweep in the neighborhood. She noted that this was a very common practice. Chairperson Burrell noted that Ms. Pickering's comments answered a lot of questions. She said that just because someone else in the neighborhood has a similar structure does not mean the city will automatically allow it. She asked Mr. Cordero how they were able to find out about this structure. Mr. Cordero stated that someone most likely alerted the city and the code compliance officer cited the applicant in May of 2007. Boardmember Ligon asked for clarification as to if someone had called and complained. Mr. Cordero stated that someone did call and report the infraction and code compliance opened a case against the applicant. Boardmember Gallegos addressed the fact that others might be enjoying the same privilege requested by the applicant and one could assume that they were being deprived. Ms. Pickering explained that it could be argued that they were being deprived if others had constructed similar structures, however, if they were illegally constructed, they were illegal and not in compliance. Additionally, the status of the other structures being presented today was not known; therefore, they could not speak to that issue but only the issue at hand. Chairperson Burrell closed the public hearing. Chairperson Burrell asked for any further comments or discussion from the Board. Boardmember Leonardo commented that it was always a difficult situation when the Board had the rights of the citizens and city to uphold against the hard work of a homeowner that wishes to make his home nicer. He said that his heart did go out to the applicant, unfortunately, they had not followed procedure and are now in this situation. He added that the city had to follow the rules of the zoning requirements so that it could always be relied upon by others. He noted that as far as the other structures in the area, they could not base any decisions on them because they did not know the history behind them. He discussed the option of a continuance and found that it may not be a viable solution because any changes to the structure would be difficult. Boardmember DeLossa commented that this structure was very nice; however it was not in compliance and believes it will set precedence. He stated that it was admirable that the family spent a lot of time and money on this project, nevertheless, the Board has to do their job and uphold the city's requirements and procedures. He noted that this was a tough decision but would vote not to approve the variance. Boardmember Barker commented that he had a difficult time understanding why the applicant had not followed procedures and acquired the proper permits in a world where there were always rules and regulations. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 9 Chairperson Burrell commented on the Board having a difficult time with this variance because of the time and money put in by the applicant. However, the applicant's decision to build an illegal structure does not bind the Board to allow them to break the rules. She noted that the argument presented today was that this was a very nice structure that had cost them a lot of money and if denied they would have to tear it down and cause the family hardship. She said that they should have asked permission before constructing a very expensive structure that might have to be torn down. Boardmember Gallegos commented on the dilemma of setting precedence. He said that he was not sure if it applied to this application. He discussed the structures in the surrounding area and questioned if this applicant was being deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties, if those properties were somehow under a variance. He stated that what usually persuaded his opinion was what the surrounding neighbors thought on the matter. He stated that this was a very difficult decision because they had heard from both sides. Chairperson Burrell stated that the Board had been appointed to approve variances on the four findings. She discussed the first finding and stated that this property did not have any special circumstances such as a small lot or no room for their cars. The second finding addressed whether the applicant has been deprived of privileges enjoyed by others. She said that the applicant had not been deprived of building a carport, however, was required to obtain the proper permits and abide by city laws. She said that the third finding dealt with the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship and did not meet the criteria because the structure was extremely large. She commented that they had already discussed three out of the four finding and found them to be denied. She noted that she had never seen a case in her two years that met none of the four findings. She explained that she believed the Board was struggling with the fact that this had cost a lot of money and it looks very nice. She said that if they started deciding cases based on how nice something looks rather than looking to the findings, there was really no need for a Board because there would be no rules. Boardmember Barker commented that should this case be approved without going through the proper procedures, it would set precedence because other people will find out and request the same treatment. Boardmember Ligon commented that he was appalled that anyone would build a structure such as this and ignore the existence of zoning restrictions. Boardmember Gallegos asked for clarification as to how the voting process was done. He asked if the criteria for the four findings would have to be met to approve a variance. Chairperson Burrell stated that he was correct. Chairperson Burrell called for any other questions or discussions from the Board. The Board had no questions; therefore, she asked Mr. Russ Romney, Assistant City Attorney and Legal Counsel, to proceed with the findings. March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 10 Based on the facts and evidence presented, Mr. Romney requested a voice vote from the Board; however, he stated that in the event of mixed votes, Ms. Hunt would need to poll the Board individually. He then went on to ask the following questions. Finding One: Does the Board find that there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which were not self- imposed by the owner? Chairperson Burrell called for a voice vote from the Board on the 1st finding and the Board responded with a 7-0 vote of"Nay". Finding Two: Does the Board find that due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district? Chairperson Burrell called for a voice vote from the Board on the 2nd finding. The Board responded with a mixed vote; therefore, Ms. Lisa Hunt, Recording Secretary, polled the Board on the 2nd finding and the Board responded with a 6-1 vote of "Nay". Boardmember Gallegos voted "Aye". Finding Three: Does the Board find that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardships? Ms. Hunt polled the Board on the 3rd finding and the Board responded with a 7-0 vote of "Nay". Finding Four: Does the Board find the granting of the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, surrounding neighborhoods or the city in general? Ms. Hunt polled the Board on the 4th finding and the Board responded with a 6-1 vote of "Nay". Boardmember Gallegos voted "Aye". Mr. Romney asked that if based on the findings, does the Board wish to grant variance VAR07- 15 subject to the site plan and floor plan date-stamped October 10, 2007 with the stipulations set forth by the Planning Department. Ms. Hunt polled the Board. VARO7-15 was DENIED, 7-0. Chairperson Burrell called for Approval of the Minutes for February 14, 2008, stating that they jumped right in to business when the meeting was called to order. Boardmember DeLossa MADE a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the February 14, 2008 meeting. Boardmember Ligon SECONDED the MOTION; however, the vote was March 13,2008 Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 11 not officially completed. Therefore, the item will be carried over for approval at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. Chairperson Burrell called for Other Business. As there was none, she called for the Planning Staff Report. Ms. Pickering informed the Board of the upcoming Boards and Commissions Fair on April 29, 2008. She said that they are being asked to invite a potential Board or Commission member to the event. AGENDA ITEM: 2. Ms. Pickering requested that the Board consider vacating the April 10, 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting due to no items. Boardmember McCormick MADE a MOTION to VACATE the April 10, 2008 meeting. Boardmember Leonardo SECONDED the MOTION. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ms. Pickering stated that the next meeting would be May 8, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Burrell called for Board Comments and Suggestions. As there were none, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. y LisaTfun ,/l(eco d'. g Secretary