Extracted text (via pymupdf)
10099 characters
1
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING
CONFERENCE ROOM B3
5850 W. GLENDALE AVENUE
GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301
THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH, 2020
4:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Committee members present: Vice Chair Cathy Cheshier, Lawrence Feiner, Kyle Holschlag,
and Brian Britton were present.
Committee members absent: Chairperson Erminie Zarra, and Benjamin Naber were absent and
excused.
City staff present: Lisa Collins (Interim Development Services Director), Samantha Cope
(Administrative Support Staff), Tina LaVelle (Planner), Edward Vigil (Planner), and Russ
Romney (Deputy City Attorney).
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Vice Chair Cheshier asked for citizen comments, and no citizen comments were made.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion to approve the February meeting minutes was made by Mr. Feiner and seconded by
Mr. Britton. All were in favor.
WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES
There were no withdrawals or continuances at this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.VAR19-11 AGUILAR RESIDENCE VARIANCE:
A request by Irma Aguilar to exceed the maximum lot coverage of 10% to 30% and to reduce
side yard setbacks to 15 feet from 50 feet as required in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning dis-
trict. The site is located at 6030 W. Marconi Avenue in the Sahuaro District. Presentation by
Christina Lavelle, Planner.
Staff Findings and Analysis
The Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to
granting a variance. Each finding is presented below along with staff’s analysis.
2
The Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to
granting a variance. Each finding is presented below along with staff’s analysis.
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property including
its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the
owner;
The 50-foot setbacks of the of the lot create a special circumstance not self-imposed by the prop-
erty owner. The lot dimensions of the property 108.2 square feet x 180.02 square feet. The cur-
rent setbacks are seventy-five feet from the front property line, fifty (50) feet from the side yard
property lines, and fifty (50) feet from the rear. Strict application of the code would result in a
building footprint of roughly 775 sf. And with a building envelope eight (8) feet by fifty-eight
(58) feet.
In addition, the lot coverage requirement of percent creates a special circumstance not self-im-
posed by the property owner. The property lot size is 19,224 square feet, whilst the minimum lot
size requirement for a lot created today in A-1 is forty acres (1,742,400 square feet). Strict appli-
cation of the code would limit the lot coverage by structure to 1,922 square feet.
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classifica-
tion in the same zoning district;
The lot size, width, and length closely resemble the lot size and dimensions of the SR-17 Dis-
trict. The required side yard building setbacks in the SR-17 zoning district are fifteen feet. The
proposed single-family addition will meet this required setback. The maximum lot coverage by
structure in the SR-17 zoning district, is thirty percent. The proposed addition and out-buildings
meet the maximum lot coverage requirement of the SR-17 zoning district.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship; and
The requested side setbacks are the minimum necessary to construct additions to the home that
are reasonable. At 108.2 feet in width, a single-family addition would be 8 feet in width which is
insufficient for any addition. In addition, the A-1 maximum allowance of only ten (10) percent
maximum lot coverage, would limit the total building footprint to 1922.4 square feet. This would
not allow for either a limited number of accessory structures or none.
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining
property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general.
The requested building setbacks and increased lot coverage are consistent with other properties
in the surrounding area and will not detrimentally affect any neighboring properties.
3
Recommendation: The variance request appears to meet all four findings and should be ap-
proved. If the Board decides to grant the variance, it should be subject to the following stipula-
tion:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the applicant’s site plan date Feb-
ruary 19, 2020
Proposed Motion: Move to approve VAR19-11 per the findings and subject to the stipulation
contained in the staff report.
Mr. Feiner clarified the request. Vice Chair Cheshier asked about the setbacks of the neighbor-
ing properties.
Vice Chair Cheshier opened the public hearing, and with no comments made, she immediately
closed the public hearing as well.
After the public hearing closed, the board voted per each finding with the help of Mr. Romney.
1. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
2. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
3. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
4. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
Mr. Feiner made a motion to approve the variance (subject to stipulations), and it was seconded
by Mr. Britton. All voted “aye” in favor, and none opposed. Variance granted.
B. VAR19-14 BONAR RESIDENCE VARIANCE:
A request by Justin Bonar to allow side yard setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet where 15 feet is re-
quired in the R-2 (Mixed Residence) zoning district. The site is located at 5439 West State Ave-
nue in the Ocotillo District. Presentation by Edward Vigil, Planner.
Staff Findings and Analysis
FINDINGS:
The Board of Adjustment must analyze four findings based on the evidence in the record prior to
granting a variance. Each finding is presented below along with staff’s analysis.
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property including
its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which were not self-imposed by the
owner;
The 15-foot R-2 perimeter setbacks of the lot create a special circumstance not self-imposed by
the property owner. In 1993, the zoning ordinance modified the lot size from 3,000 square feet
to 10,000 square feet. In addition, the setbacks were modified from 5 and 10 feet to the current
15-foot perimeter setback requirement. The construction of a single-family home requires some
level of relief.
4
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classifica-
tion in the same zoning district;
The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would limit the property to fifteen (15) foot pe-
rimeter setbacks and limit the construction of any type of building. With the current setback re-
quirements, a single-family residence could only be 20 feet wide.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship; and
The requested side setbacks are the minimum necessary to construct a new single-family resi-
dence. Maximum lot coverage, and minimum lot depth are in conformance with current R-2
zoning requirements.
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining
property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general.
The requested building setbacks are consistent with other properties in the surrounding area and
will not detrimentally affect any neighboring properties. Many of the properties and homeowners
in the neighborhood have gone through the variance process to request reduced setbacks for a
single-family residence that were approved by the Board of Adjustment in the past. This request
would not appear to have any detrimental effect on the property, adjoining properties, or the sur-
rounding neighborhood.
ANALYSIS:
All applicable city departments have reviewed the application and recommend approval of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION
The variance request appears to meet all four findings and should be approved. If the Board de-
cides to grant the variance, it should be subject to the following stipulation:
Development shall be in substantial conformance with the applicant’s site plan, floor plan, and
building elevations, dated May 3, 2019.
PROPOSED MOTION
Move to approve VAR19-14 per the findings and subject to the stipulation contained in the staff
report.
Vice Chair Cheshier opened the public hearing, and with no comments made, she immediately
closed the public hearing as well.
After the public hearing closed, the board voted per each finding with the help of Mr. Romney.
1. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
5
2. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
3. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
4. Mr. Holschlag, Vice Chair Cheshier, Mr. Feiner, and Mr. Britton, all said, “aye.”
Mr. Holschlag made a motion to approve the variance (subject to stipulations), and it was
seconded by Mr. Britton. All voted “aye” in favor, and none opposed. Variance granted.
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Collins did not have a staff report.
BOARD COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
No other business, board comments, or suggestions were made.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will take place on Thursday, May 14th, 2020, at 4 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Britton made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and it was seconded by Mr. Feiner.