Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-07 BOA MINUTESMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA 1001 N. IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA JULY 7, 1980 7:00 P.M. In Attendance Guests Joe Jessamine Don Nesser Bill Vaughn Bill Furness Pete Nunn Chuck Newcomer, Acting Executive Secretary Kathy Connelly, Secretary 1.Mr. Newcomer 2.Nunn/Vaughn 3.Furness/Vaughn 4.Vaughn/Nunn Mr. and Mrs. Lawson Mr. and Howard Boso Mr. and Mrs. Ribaudo Tom Damiano, Councilman Marie Shanks, Councilman Joe Gero, Director of Planning Mrs. Frances Ramirez opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M. and announced that since this was the first meeting of the new fiscal year, it was necessary for the Board to elect new officers.Until such time that the new Chairman was elected, he would assume the role of the Chairman and conduct the meeting. He then proceeded to call the roll and deter- mined all members present as indicated above. There being a quorum present, he called for nominations for the position of Chairman. M/S to nominate Joe Jessamine for Chairman. M/S to nominate Don Nesser for Chairman. M/S to close nominations. The motion passed 5-0. 5.Mr. Newcomer proceeded to distribute ballots for a written vote on the nominations. 6.Mr. Jessamine 7.Nunn/Furness 8.Nunn/Vaughn After the counting of the ballots, it was determined that Joe Jessamine was elected Chairman of the Board of Adjustment for a term ending June 30, 1981, by a vote of 4-1. assumed the Chairman's position and proceeded with the election of the Vice -Chairman. M/S to nominate Don Nesser for Vice -Chairman. M/S to close nominations. The motion passed 5-0. 9.Chairman announced that since there were no other nom- inations for Vice -Chairman that Mr. Nesser was the newly -elected Vice -Chairman for the term ending June 30, 1981. 10.Chairman 11.Nesser/Vaughn called the Board's attention to the Minutes from the meeting of June 23, 1980 and called for a motion on the Minutes. M/S to approve the Minutes from the Board ZY —Adjustment meeting of June 23, 1980, as written. The motion passed 5-0. Page 2 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 12.Chairman 13.Mr. Furness 14.Chairman 15.Mr. Nesser 16.Chairman 17.Mr. Boso 18.Mrs. Boso 19.Chairman 20.Mr. Boso 21.Chairman 22.Mr. Nesser 23.Mr. Newcomer 24.Chairman 25.Mr. Furness announced that the next item on the agenda was the continuance of the hearing on Pinal County Special Use Permit SUP -59-77 issued to Mr. Howard Boso for automobile repair. He informed those present that the hearing had been continued so that the Board members could resolve the issue of the fencing re- quirements for the property. He called for a discussion or comments from the Board members. expressed to the members that he felt that the decision of what areas to be fenced should be left up to the individual re- garding the requirements of the work area. described the property in question and the fenced areas already in existence. suggested that the meeting be opened to the public so that Mr. Boso would have the oppor- tunity to speak for himself. called on Mr. Boso to explain his view of the fencing requirements. questioned why the Board wanted such a large area of the property fenced in. explained that the area with the concrete piers was also their own parking area and to fence it in would be a great inconvenience. explained that the requirement was such that the work area be screened from the neighboring properties. explained that certain areas were used for 'automobiles, but that these were his own per- sonal property since he also restored Corvairs. The areas where these cars were located were not actual work areas. called for comments for or against the renewal of the Special Use Permit and the requirements as set forth. suggested that the Board revise the terms of the requirements to include a specific height for the screening fence, a stipulation that it be fencing material and not hedges, and that the applicant be given the chance to answer com- plaints if and when they are filed.He also suggested that the work area be defined in order to avoid future conflict. suggested that the applicant be given a time frame of 6 months to 1 year to erect the fence. questioned the term "work area". suggested that the Board not define the work area, but leave it to the applicant to do so. He felt that the main concern was that the fence screened this particular area. Page 3 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 26.Mr. Gero 27.Chairman 28.Mr. Gero 29.Mr. Nesser 30.Mr. Nunn 31.Mr. Newcomer 32.Mr. Nesser 33.Mr. Nunn 34.Mr. Boso 35.Chairman explained the terms of the Special Use Permit and the requirement that it be renewed on a year-to-year basis.The fence around the work area was a requirement, but should not be con- sidered a restriction. He explained that the installation of the fence might be an unexpected financial burden and that a reasonable period of time should be allowed to comply. He agreed that the applicant should be allowed to define the work area and that the respon- sibility for doing so be placed on him. pointed out that the work area could be on the east side and fenced accordingly, but any cars placed on the west side would not be screened. stressed that if the applicant parks a car in a specific area to be worked on, then that will also be a part of the work area. reiterated that all cars associated with the facility must be screened whether parked there or actually undergoing repair. questioned the height requirement for the fence since a specific 6' fence seemed high. He called for a staff recommendation on the height requirement. suggested that the requirement be between 5 and 6 feet, and emphasized that 4' would be too low for effective screening.He pointed out that on the east side of the property that the fence was only 4', but the shrubs were between 6'-8' and did provide adequate screening. suggested that the original resolution be amended to allow for a 1 -year extension to comply with the fencing requirement. pointed out that the original resolution did not specify a fence height or area to be screened. explained that a fence 5' high would conceal cars being worked on. suggested that the fence on the west side be allowed to remain at 4' high unless someone complains about the lack of screening. 36.Mr. Boso explained that the neighbors on that particular side of the property would not complain. 37.Mr. Nunn suggested that the Board require a 6' height requirement on the fencing. 38.Mr. Vaughn suggested that the requirement be between 5' and 6' to allow for calculation errors and deviations. 39.Mr. Gero agreed with Mr. Vaughn to allow for grading requirements. Page 4 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 40.Mrs. Boso 41.Mr. Boso 42.Mr. Nesser 43.Nesser/Nunn felt that the Board should specifythose areas used for work and thoseused for family parking since part of the property was used for their own private cars. explained that he had approximately 15 cars on the premises that he owned privately and that he was restoring as classics.He did not see why these cars had to be fenced in since they were not part of the work area. suggested that the original resolution be amended to allow the applicant to define the work area and to fence it accordingly. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment -61--the City of Apache Junction, Arizona: Hereby granting a twelve (12) month extension of Pinal County SUP -59-77; a special use permit issued by the Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission to Mr. Howard Boso of 1536 West Roundup Street, Apache Junction, Arizona, to operate an auto repair garage on the premises, provided that the conditions and requirements- herein established by the Board of Adjustment and as set forth in Pinal County SUP -59-77 are complied with.These conditions and re- quirements include: 1.The approval would be granted on a year- to-year operation with extensions, provided that nuisance complaints are not filed. In the event of a complaint, the applicant would be notified and given the opportunity to answer the complaint before the Board. 2.The approval of use cannot be transferred to another person without a hearing and Board of Adjustment approval. 3.This approval is for car repair only and does not include body or fender work. 4.The location is to be kept in a clean order and "junk" automobiles will not be permitted. All parking shall be on the owner's prop- erty and any signs shall be approved by the City Zoning Administrator. 5.The work area shall be surrounded by .a screening fence of 5' to 6' in height to conceal activity from any and all neigh- bors.The applicant shall determine what is the.work area and erect the screening fence accordingly--to-be inspected by and to meet the approval of the City Building Official. The fence on the east side of the property shall be permitted to remain 4' in height with shrubbery as additional screening un- less complaints are made against same. The applicant shall be permitted a period of one (1) year to erect the fence and meet the requirements as indicated above. 6.Any provisions contained in the City Zoning Ordinance which are applicable to property located in a CB -2 zone and which does not conflict with the special requirements as set forth in this resolution, shall also be Page 5 Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 44.Chairman applicable. The Board takes note that there has not been a written complaint filed against Mr. Boso's auto repair operation within the past twelve (12) months.Upon receipt by the City of Apache Junction of a written complaint filed against Mr. Boso's auto repair service, Mr. Boso will be duly notified and will be given the opportunity to be heard on the matter.The Board of Adjustment may refuse to grant future extensions of Pinal County SUP -59-77 based upon written complaints. FailureAo comply.with .the-provisions as set forth in this resolution shall result. in the discontinuance of the special uses granted to Mr. Boso by Pinal County SUP -59-77., called for a vote on the proposed amendments to the resolution regarding fencing as motioned by Mr. Nesser and Mr. Nunn. The motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Vaughn voting "no". 45.Chairman called for a motion to accept the resolution as indicated above. 46.Nunn/Furness 47.Chairman 48.Mr. Newcomer M/S to approve the resolution as indicated The motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Vaughn voting "no". requested the Executive Secretary brief the members on the next item on the agenda, BA -10.,80, the variance application from Mrs. Frances Ramirez. explained the circumstances of the case to the members and the requirement that the legal property owners grant permission to there- quest for such a variance. He further explained that it had come to his attention that Mrs. Ramirez was not the sole property owner and that the other owner had not given his consent to the variance request. Therefore, the Board had before them an improper application and would not be able to proceed with the hearing. He informed the Board that the applicant's attorney was working in getting sole ownership for Mrs. Ramirez but had not obtained a court date as of this time. 49.Mr. Ribaudo read a telegram to the Board from the other property owner which refused approval of the variance application andinformed the Board that he was linable to attend the meeting. 50.Mr. Gero explained that the original application had given the staff the impression that only one property owner was involved.He suggested that the Board allow Mrs. Ramirez the time to show ownership.However, he also suggested that a specific time frame be allowed since it would be improper to continue the hearing in- definitely. Page 6 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 51.Chairman 52.Mr. Newcomer 53.Mr. Ribaudo 54.Mr. Gero 55.Chairman 56.Vaughn/Jessamine 57.Chairman 58.Nesser/Nunn 59.Chairman 60.Mr. Newcomer asked Mr. Ribaudo to submit the telegram to the Board as reference to be brought up at the next meeting. informed those present that the continuance would not be readvertised and the property owners would not be notified of the next hearing. questioned whether or not the City was still enforcing the zoning restriction of one (1) mobile home per lk acre since Mrs. Ramirez had already placed another trailer on the property. reminded the Board that on properties that had more than one ownership, all involved parties must give approval.Since the Board did not have the complete approval, they could not proceed at this time. called for a question on the continuance of the public hearing. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment -6-f-the City of Apache Junction, Arizona: Hereby delaying any action on BA -10-80 until the next regular meeting meeting of the Board of Adjustment to be held on Monday, August 4, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. at 1001 North Idaho Road, Apache Junction, Arizona, at which time the public hearing on this case will be continued." The motion passed 5-0. called for a motion to close the public hearing. M/S to close the public hearing section of the meeting. The motion passed 5-0. called for a five-minute recess before pro- ceeding with the business portion of the meeting. The meeting was re -called to order at 8:05 P.M. briefed the members on the information in their packet marked Agenda Item #6 which included a memo from the City Clerk requesting that the Chairman submit an Activity Report by noon on the second Wednesday of each month for inclu- sion in the City Council packet.These reports were in addition to the "Minutes". Also included in the information was a memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them to consider increasing the Board membership from five (5) to seven (7) members. Included for the information of the members was an excerpt from the State Statutues on "conflict of interest" which had been discussed at the previous meeting.This definition clarified the question of what was legally a "conflict of interest". Page 7 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980 He informed the Board members that the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission would be considering the increase of the Board membership at their July 15, 1980 meeting and urged all to attend. 61.Chairman called for additional questions or comments from the Board members. 62.Mr. Nesser 63.Mr. Newcomer 64.Mr. Vaughn 65.Mr. Newcomer asked if the newly -appointed members of the Board had to be worn in even if they had been re -appointed. explained that letters had been sent out to Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Furness informing them of their appointment and requesting that they be sworn in by the City Clerk.Both parties had already complied with the requirement. asked if it was possible to have the Board packets prepared by the Thursday prior to the meeting so that there was enough time to re- view the information and inspect the sites. replied that he would try to have the packets prepared by Thursday, at the latest, unless it was unavoidable. 66.Chairman called for a motion to close the meeting. 67.Nesser/Nunn M/S to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 5-0. 68.Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted: 144-1e- f(Adca7/4/>- Ch-afies Newcolbe'r Acting Executive Secretary Approved: ."-.:. (- Jog :-1 ---..iiii-War-- ' Ch...n :.a . of Adjustment