Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 11/12/1998 (3) WORKSHOP MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE CITY HALL BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM 2-A 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 12, 1998 The workshop was called to order at approximately 5:54 p.m., with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Kathe Neyer Daniel Drew Ron Piceno Robert Koehler Richard Gitelson Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson CITY STAFF: Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney Dean Svoboda,Planning Director Ray Jacobs,Zoning Administrator Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The Workshop was called to order at 5:54 p.m. Each person present took a moment to introduce him or herself. GENERAL DISCUSSION Mr. Jacobs referred to the function of the Board of Adjustments, one of the most obvious being hearing and deciding on requests for variances. In addition, the Board may hear appeals for decisions regarding interpretations of the zoning ordinance which are generally regarding whether use is permitted in a specific district. Also, the Board may hear appeals from administrative decisions by the Planning Director. Mr. Jacobs also covered the zoning ordinance in regards to private property rights that are balanced versus some of the ordinance requirements. He stated that zoning is site specific. The Board will traditionally deal with site issues in terms of the variances and how the ordinance itself is applied to a particular parcel or property. November 12, 1998 BOA WORKSHOP MINUTES Page 2 Mr. Jacobs then went on to discuss the zoning ordinance itself and the various functions the ordinance seeks to achieve. Under general development standards, most of the variances the Board will be faced with will be concerning parking, setbacks, yard regulations, accessory buildings, landscaping, fences and wall heights. Part of the reason the Board sees cases of this nature is the impact of our previous zoning ordinance. The previous ordinance had very few setbacks within the Commercial Industrial Zoning Districts. Our current zoning ordinance is suburban in nature in terms of its setbacks and orientation to the street. It's very different from our previous ordinance. As a result, the Board receives the requests in older neighborhoods that seek to match surrounding development. Mr. Jacobs then referred to the Riggins case regarding a self-storage facility which was heard by the Board earlier this year. He asked if there were any questions on the case that he could address or if there were things staff could have done to present some of that information in a better format. Boardmember Drew stated that he watched the City Council meeting in which the Riggins case was appealed. He felt that there were many differences between the Board of Adjustment meeting to consider the variance and the City Council meeting to hear the appeal. Chairperson Cheniae stated that some of the property owners came to agreement before the appeal was heard by the City Council. Mr. Jacobs stated that in regard to the Riggins case, some of the adjacent property owners changed their position which may have influenced the decision made by the City Council. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there was more than just a review of the records by the City Council. Mr. Svoboda stated that the people who were appealing were given the opportunity to state the reasons for appealing the decision. He agreed with Chairperson Cheniae that there is a broader discussion at the appeal. But, it is still within the basic intent of the process. Mr. Flaaen stated that the intent is that it's supposed to be a hearing on the record, not a new hearing. However, that still permits a party to comment on the evidence that was presented below. Sometimes, a party starts talking about new evidence. It is the responsibility of the chair of the meeting to minimize it. If the comments are allowed they are part of the discussion. Mr. Jacobs stressed that it is important for the Boardmembers to reference the four required findings in making their decision on the variance. City Council meetings are open to the public and members of the Board of Adjustment could attend. He stated that it's not necessary for the Boardmembers to attend since he represents the Boardmembers and presents the record to the Council. November 12, 1998 BOA WORKSHOP MINUTES Page 3 Boardmember Neyer asked if the Board's decision on the Riggins case was overruled by the City Council. Mr. Jacobs responded that the City Council did reverse part of the Board's decision on the building setback variance that was denied. He stated that the adjacent property owners had dropped their opposition which was presented at the Board meeting. CASE STUDIES Mr. Jacobs reviewed the first case study. It was a variance to allow an additional driveway that is not contiguous to the original driveway. The zoning ordinance says you may only have one contiguous parking area in the front yard. The applicant stated that the building was built incorrectly using an elevation that was not agreed upon. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the applicant built the house. Mr. Jacobs stated that he bought it and somehow the wrong elevation was constructed. Boardmember Drew asked if the property is in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Jacobs responded that it's on the corner of the cul-de-sac. Boardmember Gitelson commented that in regard to finding #1, if the applicant built the house, then finding#1 was not met. His situation would be self-imposed. There is nothing in regard to the size, shape or surroundings that would have caused it. Regarding finding #4, he felt the variance would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Boardmember Piceno also stated that he felt it would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. He didn't feel it was necessary to alleviate a property hardship. He felt 51 feet of concrete driveway is excessive. Boardmember Drew stated that he did not see any special circumstances or conditions in this case. Upon looking at the plat plan of the builder, he stated that the builder built it according to the plan. Therefore, if the house was bought brand new, then the applicant should take it up with the builder and not the Board of Adjustment. Boardmember Neyer stated that it appeared as if the applicant looked at the model and had the house built,but did not realize he had a problem until the house was completed. Mr. Jacobs stated that this variance was recommended for denial. It received no support. Finding#4 was the main issue. November 12, 1998 BOA WORKSHOP MINUTES Page 4 Boardmember Gitelson asked if the decision would have been different had the buyer bought the house after it was built. Mr. Jacobs responded that it would not have made a significant difference. Mr. Jacobs then presented the next case study. It was a variance to allow a fifteen foot front setback for a garage where 20 feet is the minimum in a R1-6 zoning district. The property doesn't have unusual features. The proposal is to enclose the carport into a garage to provide greater security on the property and provide greater protection from the elements for the vehicle occupants. The applicants require a wheelchair lift mounted to the rear of their automobile. The length of the vehicle including the lift is approximately 23 feet. If the carport were enclosed it would leave only 17 feet for the driveway. The ordinance does require all single family residences to have two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The building code requires at least one wheelchair ramp per residence for use by handicapped individuals. The zoning ordinance makes no provisions. Boardmember Piceno stated that he would approve the variance. He felt that it met all findings. Boardmember Drew stated that the first three findings were satisfied. Regarding finding #4, he would first want to hear the neighbors' opinions. Boardmember Gitelson stated that seeing the actual property is important before making a decision on a variance. He felt that the variance should be approved. He didn't think it would set a bad precedent because other neighbors wouldn't want anyone in their family to be wheelchair-bound just to get an extra five feet. Boardmember Koehler stated that he would not support the variance. There are no special circumstances. This property enjoys all the amenities of the other properties. It has a 20-foot driveway. If they put a 24-foot vehicle in a 20-foot driveway it would cause the vehicle to be four foot out across the sidewalk. If the driveway were reduced to 15 feet it would block the sidewalk. Mr. Jacobs informed the Board that the variance was voted down by a vote of 5-0. REVIEW OF LEGAL ISSUES Mr. Flaaen discussed open meeting laws. The Board of Adjustments is a public body. Therefore, all of the meetings are required to be open meetings unless there is a legitimate Executive Session. Executive Sessions for this body are called very infrequently. They would be primarily for the Board to get legal advice on a new issue, possibly something that hadn't come up before. An example would be a group home to which Federal Laws apply. Otherwise, all meetings must be held in the open. The whole idea allows all sides, the Board, the applicant, November 12, 1998 BOA WORKSHOP MINUTES Page 5 the general public, or someone who opposes the request to hear the evidence that's presented, the rationale and discussion of the Board and to hear the final outcome by the Board. Mr. Flaaen then discussed ex-parte contacts. If an applicant or concerned party wished to discuss the variance with the Boardmember outside of the hearing, you can't discuss it with them. The Boardmembers should inform the applicant or other party that whatever they say may be so important that the rest of the Boardmembers should have the opportunity to hear this information at the hearing. If someone should insist on speaking of the variance, the Boardmember is responsible for sharing this information at the next Board meeting at the beginning of the meeting. This will ensure that everyone has the same knowledge of the ex-parte contact. Mr. Flaaen informed the Board that accepting gifts or gratuities could be viewed as influencing your vote. This would not extend to the offer of a cold drink on a hot day at the property site. However, accepting an offer of lunch and drinks at a restaurant would not be acceptable. Mr. Flaaen then covered conflicts of interest. He covered both legal conflicts and moral conflicts. The legal conflict would occur if you, your spouse, your children, your children's spouse, your parents or a sibling have a financial interest in the outcome of the decision or the matter before the Board, then you have a legal conflict and are required to recuse yourself not only from participating, but from sitting on the Board for that item. The moral conflict is something you would have to make a decision on. It would be a friend who wants a variance passed. You must make the determination as to whether you can fairly and objectively hear the case and base your decision on the facts presented. If you feel you would be unable to be impartial,you should inform the Chair that you must recuse yourself. ADJOURNMENT The workshop was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary