Extracted text (via pymupdf)
9737 characters
1
DRAFT MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING
CONFERENCE ROOM B3
5850 W. GLENDALE AVENUE
GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2021
4:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Committee members present: Chairperson Cathy Cheshier, Vice Chairperson Benjamin Naber,
Brian Britton, Tammy Gee, and Kyle Holschlag were present.
Committee members absent: Larry Feiner was absent and excused.
City staff present: Tabitha Perry (Interim Planning Manager), Samantha Cope (Administrative
Support Staff), Alex Lerma (Planner), and Michael Hamblin (Assistant City Attorney).
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairperson Cheshier asked for citizen comments, and no citizen comments were made.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion to approve the September 9, 2021 meeting minutes was made by Vice Chairperson
Naber 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. 5303 WEST BECK LANE VAR21-06: A request by Linda Gonzalez to reduce the required
front yard setback from 75’ to 40’, the rear yard setback from 50’ to 25’, the west side yard
setback from 50’ to 15’, and the street side yard setback from 50’ to 10’ as required in the A-1
(Agricultural) zoning district. The purpose of this variance is to allow the construction of a new
single-family home. The site is located at 5303 West Beck Lane in the Sahuaro District. Staff
Contact: Alex Lerma, Planning Project Manager, 623-930-2810.
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.
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 width of the lot creates a special circumstance not self-imposed by the property owner. The
construction of a new home requires some level of relief. The surrounding neighborhood is de-
veloped with a variety of building setbacks, many that do not meet the current A-1 development
standards.
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 fifty (50) foot side set-
backs and deem the lot unbuildable leaving no real building envelope. Several of the properties
in the neighborhood have setbacks that are similar to those proposed by the applicant.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship; and
The requested building setbacks are the minimum necessary to construct the desired residential
home on the lot and allow the same privileges received by the other property owners in the sub-
division. The proposed residence will comply with the required building height 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.
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 conformance with the applicant’s project narrative, site plan,
building elevations, and floor plan, date stamped June 23, 2021.
Proposed Motion: Move to approve VAR21-06 per the findings and subject to the stipulation
contained in the staff report.
Chairperson 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. Hamblin.
3
1. Mr. Britton, Mr. Feiner, Ms. Gee, Mr. Holschlag, and Chairperson Cheshier all vote, “aye.”
2. Mr. Britton, Mr. Feiner, Ms. Gee, Mr. Holschlag, and Chairperson Cheshier all vote, “aye.”
3. Mr. Britton, Mr. Feiner, Ms. Gee, Mr. Holschlag, and Chairperson Cheshier all vote, “aye.”
4. Mr. Britton, Mr. Feiner, Ms. Gee, Mr. Holschlag, and Chairperson Cheshier all vote, “aye.”
Vice Chairperson Naber made a motion to approve the variance (subject to stipulations),
and it was seconded by Ms. Gee. All voted “aye” in favor, and none opposed. Variance
granted.
B. BLACK ROCK VENTURE VAR21-07: A request by David Dow, Dow Law Office, to re-
duce the separation between medical marijuana offsite cultivation and infusion locations from
the required 5,280 feet to 855 feet. The purpose of the variance is to allow the operation of a new
medical marijuana offsite cultivation and infusion facility. The site is located at 5524 North
51st Avenue and 5134 West Missouri Avenue in the Ocotillo District. Staff Contact: Cody
White, Senior Planning Project Manager, (623) 930-2805.
Interim Planning Manager Tabitha Perry gave presentation on the above project.
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 property appears to be similar in size, shape and topography to other surrounding properties
of the same zoning classification. The subject property is located 855 feet away from another
medical marijuana cultivation facility, which has been in operation since 2012.
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 Zoning Ordinance would prevent the applicant from operating a medical marijuana cultiva-
tion and infusion business on the property.
The City established regulations for medical marijuana business in 2011, through the adoption of
Ordinance Number 2763. This ordinance established a requirement that medical marijuana culti-
vation and infusion facilities be located in either the M-1 or M-2 zoning districts and be at least
5,280 feet apart from another such use.
Due to the existence of another medical marijuana cultivation facility located 855-feet away
4
from the subject property, the subject site and surrounding properties are unable to meet the sep-
aration requirement established by the Zoning Ordinance.
Other properties of similar zoning classification not located within the required buffer would be
able to operate as medical marijuana cultivation or infusion businesses, subject to City approval.
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship; and
Reducing the required separation distance from 5,280 feet to 855 feet would be the minimum
amount necessary to alleviate the property hardship.
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining
property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general.
Due to the close proximity of another medical marijuana dispensary offsite cultivation and infu-
sion location, granting the variance may have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties and
the surrounding neighborhood. The city adopted ordinance created the distance regulation to en-
sure there would not be a detrimental impact to the city in general.
PROPOSED MOTION
Move to take action on VAR21-07 per the findings contained in the staff report.
Chairperson Cheshier opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Gross, Berry Riddell LLC opposed the application.
Peter Valenzuela supported the application.
Chairperson Cheshier closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairperson Naber made a motion to go into executive session. Mr. Holschlag se-
conded the motion; all were in favor.
Vice Chairperson Naber made a motion to exit executive session and resume the regular
meeting, Mr. Holschlag seconded the motion; all were in favor.
Vice Chairperson Naber made a motion to table the public hearing item to the November
10, 2021 meeting, Ms. Gee seconded the motion; all were in favor.
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Perry did not have a staff report.
BOARD COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2022
5
Vice Chairperson Naber made a motion to recommend Cathy Cheshier as
Chairperson for a 1-year term beginning February 1, 2022. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Holschlag; all were in favor.
Mr. Holschlag made a motion to recommend Benjamin Naber as Vice Chairperson
for a 1-year term beginning February 1, 2022. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Gee; all were in favor.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will take place on Thursday, November 10, 2021, at 4 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Holschlag made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and it was seconded by Vice
Chairperson Naber all vote, “aye.”
___________________
Samantha Cope
Recording Secretary