Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-01 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA DECEMBER 1,1980 7:00 P.M. In Attendance Absent Joe Jessamine,Chairman Don Nesser,Vice Chairman William Furness William Vaughn Harvey Morrison Chuck Newcomer,Acting Executive Secretary Kathy Connelly,Secretary 1.Chairman 2.Mr.Newcomer 3.Chairman 4.Mr.Vaughn 5.Vaughn/Nesser 6.Chairman 7.Mr.Newcomer William Nunn (illness) Guests Esther F.Balla Marjorie I .Gould Howard Gould Oscar Geiger Vernon and Orpha Nelson Thomas Damiano,Councilman Allen and Ellen Price Robert and Lona Doak Hazel M.Breneman Mary Heck Evelyn Hoffarth Mary Benson Lyle and,Violet Webster Marvin Gripp John W.Rasmussen Marian Dugger Zella R.Warner Mary C.Gruper Goldie O'Hare Betty and Carl Clay opened the meeting at 7:05 P.M.and requested the Executive Secretary call the roll. called the roll and determined five (5)members present as indicated above. announced that a quorum was present and that the meeting would proceed with the first item being the consideration of the "Minutes"from the meeting of November 17,1980. requested that the "Minutes"be amended to reflect that it was Mr.Nesser and not himself that had made the request to postpone the approval of the "Minutes"until the end of the meeting in order to allow time for review.Mr.Furness has agreed. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of We' City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the "Minutes"of the meeting of November 17,1980 be approved with a correction to Item #4,changing the name from Mr.Vaughn to Mr.Nesser;and in Item #5,changing the name from Mr.Nesser to Mr.Furness". The motion passed 5-0. announced that the section for public hearings was now open and that the first item would be case BA -17-80.He asked Mr.Newcomer to brief the case. explained that BA -17-80 was a continuation of the variance application submitted by Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Park fora reduction in the side space setback requirements for the entire park. He reminded the members that the case had been con- tinued to this meeting to obtain an opinion from Page 2 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 the Fire Chief on the possible safety hazards involved. He then read the memo from the Fire Chief and the Zoning Administrator into the record. 8.Chairman requested that the applicant present his case. 9.Mr.Geiger stated that he did not have much to add since the basics of the case had been presented at the pre- vious meeting.He added that he did not see any safety factors involved. He asked Mr.Newcomer i f the Board was aware that the Fire Chief had not seen any problem with the requested variance. 10.Mr.Newcomer replied that the Zoning Administrator had called attention to the fact that the Uniform Building Code required that the structures be at least three feet (3')from the lot line. 11.Chairman asked if this should be so for all spaces. 12.Mr.Geiger replied that the variance was for all the spaces within the park. 13.Mr.Nesser asked whether .lor ..not the park peopIe would still want carports if they knew that there was a fire hazard involved. 14.Mr.Geiger replied that the residents wished to have the car- ports to protect their cars from the sun. 15.Mr.Nesser referring to the drawing,asked i f the space from lot line to structure would be 18"on one side for the tip -out side,and 18'on the other side,not including the patio and proposed carport. 16.Mr.Geiger explained that the patio was 7'.6"and the carport would be 10'6",making the space between the lot line and structure to be 18",plus another 18"from the lot line and the next structure. 17.Mr.Nesser asked i f the proposed carport would be free standing or a continuation of the patio cover. 18.Mr.Geiger 19.Mr.Nesser 20.Mr.Geiger 21.Mr.Nesser 22.Mr.Geiger replied that i t could be either. asked i f it was possible to make the tip -outs, trailer,patio cover and carport cover all contin- uous and still comply with the 3'requirement on each side. replied that it would be nicer looking and easier to maintain,but that i t could not be done on all of the lots. asked i f all other alternatives had been exhausted. He added that presently some of the spaces could conform with the requirements,but yet the variance had been for all of the spaces. replied that that was what was being requested since some spaces would conform,but others would have to be cut down. 23.Mr.Vaughn asked i f some of the trailers had storage sheds. Page 3 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 24.Mr,Geiger 25.Mr.Vaughn replied:"Yes". stated that,in other words,the carports would not be open at each end. 26.Mr.Geiger replied that some were,in cases where the storage sheds were set back. 27.'Mr,Vaughn added that,according to the diagram,some of the sheds overlapped,and were actually not open at each end. 28.Mr.Geiger replied that,in a sense,the areas were not open. 29.Chairman asked i f it was possible to make adjustments on the carport and patio so that they would not exceed the 3'requirement. 30.Mr.-Vaughn 31.Mr.Geiger 32.Chairman 33.Mr.Gould 34.Mrs.Balla 35.Chairman 36.Mrs.Balla 37.Mr.Vaughn 38.Mrs.Balla 39.Mr.Vaughn 40.Chairman 41.:Mr.Newcomer 42.Chairman asked if the patio slabs were already poured. replied that the patio sites were already set. thanked Mr.Geiger and called for other comments. explained that in his case he would be able to conform to the 3'requirement,but that he under- stood the others in the park wanting the same thing. He added that he wanted the carport to protect the vinyl roof on his car and keep the car out of the sun. explained that she had one of the Larger spaces with 7'between her: shed and the next lot,but that she -wanted toprotect::her car from the sun. She added that the, carports would improve the looks of the park. asked how she would feel i f the carport were to be 18"from her own property line. explained that she had a larger lot,but i f it were smaller then she would only be concerned if there were gas lines involved. asked how she would feel .about sending a fireman into an area that -was onTy:3 1,between the -structures. replied that the area would -be:open. replied that when the cars were there,the area would not be open called for others to speak for or against.There being none,he asked Mr.Newcomer for a recommen- dation on the case. replied that his recommendation would be the same as that of the Building Official,that being that the park would have to comply with the 1979 Uni- form Building Code as adopted by the City.He added that by granting the variance to Rock Shadows, the other parks in the area could apply on the same basis. asked i f it was possible to cut back On the size of the patio in order to place the carport mithin the 3'requirement. Page 4 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 43.Mr.Newcomer replied that even if the carport could be con- structed to meet the one -hour fire rating,that there was no way to place everything in the space provided, including the tip -outs,without violating the Uniform Building Code. 44.Chairman asked i f it was possible to move the trailer to con- form with the Code and meet the requirements.He explained that the variance,i f given to Rock Shadows, could be given to all trailer parks. 45.Mr.Geiger explained that Trailer Village and Good Life in Mesa had the 18"requirements. 46.Chairman reminded Mr.Geiger that that was another county and another city with their own set of regulations.He added that Rock Shadows had to comply with the laws of Apache Junction. 47.Mr.Geiger added that the Mesa Fire Department had no problems with enforcing the fire code with the lesser setbacks. 48.Mr.Vaughn asked i f the public hearing could be closed for five minutes so that the Board members could discuss the case. 49.Chairman closed the public hearing for five minutes. reopened the hearing at 7:40 P.M.and called for a motion on the case. 50.Mr.Furness asked for a clarification of what was being requested by Rock Shadows and what presently existed. 51.Mr.Newcomer replied that Rock Shadows was requesting a reduction in the side yard setbacks to allow the separation between the structures to be 3'total instead of the 3'for each lot as required by the City Building Code. 52.Mr.Vaughn asked i f it would be possible to pull the trailers into a one-piece unit considering the size of the mirrors on the trailers. 53.Mr.Geiger agreed that it would be difficult. 54.Mr.Nesser added that there were alternatives. 55.Chairman called for a motion. 56.Mr.Nesser Motion:"BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjsutment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby granting a variance to the requirements of Section 2001 (e)(3)of the City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reduction of the minimum side setbacks for any travel trailer in the Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Resort to be 18"from the end of the carport to the lot line.However,the distance from the main body of the adjacent trailer must be at least 3'from the end of the carport". He explained that he had no objection to the 18"from the carport roof to the next lot line,but did want to maintain a distance of 3'from the lot line to the body of the next trailer. Page 5 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 57.Mr.Vaughn asked if the motion was intended to deny the variance. 58.Mr.Nesser replied that it was for denial of the 18" from the trailer to the side lot lines,but not for the 18"from the carport to the side lot line. 59.Mr.Morrison 60.Mr.Vaughn 61.Mr.Nesser stated that i t could be possible to move the trailers up on the pads to meet the requirements. added that he would not agree with an 18"setback in any way. withdrew the motion. 62.Furness/Nesser M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the -MY of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby denying the request for a variance to the travel trailer space setback requirements of Section 2001 (e)(3)of the City Zoning Ordinance as submitted by Mr.Arthur K. Dwyer,Director of Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Resort. The reason for this denial being that i t does not fit the City Building Code. 63.Chairman 64.Mr.Newcomer called for a vote on the motion. called the roll for a vote on the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 65.Mr.Geiger asked i t it meant that the variance was denied. 66.Chairman replied:"Yes". 67.Mr.Geiger asked what the alternatives were. 68.Mr.Newcomer explained that he would go over the alternatives i f Mr.Geiger could come into the Planning Office any morning. 69.Chairman announced that the next item was case BA -18-80 and asked the Executive Secretary to brief the members. 70.Mr.Newcomer reminded the Chairman that the public hearing on this case had never been officially opened. 71.Chairman announced that the public hearing on case BA -18-80 was opened and requested that the applicant present his or her case. 72.Mrs.Wynn explained that she was requesting a variance to have a mobile home on the property to be used as a storage area until such time that permanent -facilities could be built.She added that at the time the restaurant was built,no space had been alloted for storage of canned goods or materials,not office space for doing the book work.She explained that she had been hauling the goods from her home to the restaur- ant. 73.Chairman stated that he was aware that three people had owned the property previously and that there had been prob- lems with the management and ownership.He asked i f these problems had been cleared up and i f they (the Wynn's)were now the sole owners. Page 6 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 74.Mrs.Wynn 75.Mr.Nesser 76.Mrs.Wynn 77.Mr.Nesser 78.Mrs.Wynn 79.Mr.Newcomer 80.Mr.Nesser 81.Mrs.Wynn 82.Mr.Newcomer 83.Mr.Vaughn 84.Mr.Newcomer 85.Chairman 86.Mr.Rasmussen 87.Mr.Nesser 88.Mr.Rasmussen explained that the corporation had dissolved and that the problems ,had -been resolved. asked if the trailer was intended to be temporary. stated that it would be and that they also had the intentions of building a walk-in freezer for the storage of meats.She added that presently,the Mining Camp Restaurant was allowing them to use their freezers. pointed out that,according to the Fire Chief,there might be a problem getting a fire truck in to fight a fire with the trailer so close to the building. He asked how far it was from the mobile home to the rear fence. replied that it was approximately two trailer spaces. added that it was approximately 23'. asked i f that was enough access for trucks. pointed out that the beer and delivery trucks used the space and did not seem to have trouble' with it. She added that the area might be a designated alley. pointed out that this was not indicated on the plat map. asked if utilities could be hooked up. stated that both power and water was hooked up. called fOr other questions or comments. announced that he was the attorney representing Mr. Hvidsten,who owned Lots 11 through 17 of the Parkway Plaza.As an adjacent property owner,Mr. Vdsten objected to the placement of the mobile home since i t gave an unprofessional appearance to the area that the community should want to avoid. He pointed out that the ownership of the property was now the subject of Pinal County Case #23239 before the Superior Court since the ownership had previously been deeded back to Mr.Hvidsten.He added that the owner of record was Universal Equities and not the Wynn's. He added that the storage problem was,somethinvthat the Wynn's were aware of since they had a part in the original plans and had designed the restaurant with the others. He questioned whether or not the Board could hear a case which was the subject of a Superior Court suit involving the legal ownership of the property.He was in agreement with the Zoning Administrator and Fire Chief that it was improper to place the mobile home behind the building. asked if there was any idea as to how long the case could be in litigation. stated that he was only guessing,but that it would probably be late Spring or Summer before a decision was reached. Page 7 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 89.Mr.Nesser 90.Mr.Rasmussen 91.Chairman asked if Mr.Hvidsten had any objection to the building of a permanent storage room. stated that if the Wynn's wanted to improve the property,that it was fine with them. asked what the purpose of the law suit was. 92.Mr.Rasmussen explained that Mr.Hvidstenhad sold the lots to a corporation formed by the Sodemeyers,Stones and Wynns.After construction,they ran into some financial problems and i t became necessary to deed the land back to Mr.Vdsten.He added that they were about 18 months behind in the payments.The Wynn's were now disputing the transaction,arguing that they had been forced into it. 93.Mr.Vaughn asked who was the owner of record. 94.Mr.Newcomer explained that he had assumed the Wynns were,but would have to check with Pinal County on ownership. 95.Mr.Rasmussen pointed out that Hvidsten paid •the real property taxes, but that the Wynns paid taxes on the personal property. 96.Chairman 97.Mr.Nesser 98.Mrs.Wynn 99.Mr.Nesser 100.Mrs.Wynn 101.Mr.Newcomer 102.Nesser/Jessamine 103.Mr.Vaughn 104.Mr.Nesser asked Mrs.Wynn i f she had anything to say. asked Mrs.Wynn i f she could state,under oath,that she was the legal owner. replied:"No". asked if they still had intentions of improving the property even i f the ownership was under question. replied:"Yes". suggested that the Board delay the decision until the ownership was verified and he was able to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of th-6-City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the public hearing on case BA -18-80 be continued until the meeting of January 5,1980 to allow investigation of the ownership question raised on the property". asked why the case '.should be continued since there were already so many irregularities in it. maintained that the Board might be able to deny the trailer,but could not act on the application if the ownership was under dispute. 105.Mr.Vaughn asked that if the City disallowed the trailer,could the City have i t removed from the property. 106.Mr.Newcomer explained that a Cease and Desist order had already been issued on the use,pending the variance decision. 107.Chairman 108.Mr.Vaughn asked if the legal owner could remove i t themselves. agreed with Mr.Nesser and asked i f the Board could drop the case and refuse to hear i t since the owner was not known. Page 8 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 109.Chairman 110.Mr.Newcomer 111.Mr.Damiano 112.Chairman 113.Mr.Vaughn 114.Chairman 115.Mr. 'Newcomer 116.Chairman 117.Mrs.Warner 118.Chairman 119.Mrs.Warner pointed out that the Wynns had acted as the owners in applying for a variance,but that the attorney was now claiming another ownership. added that the Board could make a motion to postpone the case. as a point of information,added that there was already one motion on the floor. called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed 3-1-1 with Mr.Nesser voting "no"and Mr.Vaughn voting "present". called for a five-minute recess. there being no objection,called a short recess. He re -opened the meeting at 8:30 P.M.and announced that there was a slight change in the agenda since he had been informed that Mrs.Warner was concerned about her husband being left at home since he was ill. He asked the Executive Secretary to brief the Board on case BA -21-80. explained that Mrs.Price was applying for a. variance to the front yard setback requirements of the CR-3 zone in order to add on to the existing dwelling. She was requesting that the front yard be reduced to 15'. called on the applicant to present the case. explained that they wished to enclose the front patio which measured 7'x15'.The front wall would extend slightly more than the 7'with the roof overhang extending approximately 7'6". asked why this was being requested, explained that her husband was ill and that she would soon need a wheelchair to move around herself. This area was needed to make i t easier to care for her husband. 120.Mr.Nesser added that he had spoken with the applicant today and that her reasons had been satisfactory to htm. 121.Chairman 122.Mrs.Warner 123.Chairman 124.Mr.Newcomer 125.Mr.Nesser asked i f there were any comments for or against. added that Mr.Peterson and Mr.Whiteaker had told her that they approved of her request. called for the recommendation from the staff. read the memo from the Zoning Administrator stating that he had no objection and added that he was in agreement, pointed out that the Board had heard cases with thts kind of problem before,and that Mrs.Warner was only the victim of the CR-3 zoning and having a mall lot. 126.Nesser/Furness M/S '13E IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby granting 132.Mr.Newcomer 133.Chariman 134.Mr.Newcomer Page 9 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1981 127.Chairman 128.Mr.Newcomer 129.Chairman 130.Mr.Price a variance to Section 1106 of the City Zoning Ordinance and permitting the front yard setbacks to be reduced to approximately 15'as shown on the diagram submitted with the application.The prop- erty is located at 269 S.Ocotillo Drive,Apache Junction,Arizona,Lot 7 Hughes Place Subdivision. The reasons for this being that due to the odd shape of the lots in this subdivision,i t is virtually impossible to have adequate housing space in accor- dance with the CR-3 zoning classification.The 15' setback is in compliance with the TH classification, similar to the lot layouts in this subdivision. The motion passed 5-0. announced that the next item on the agenda was case BA -19-80 and asked the Executive Secretary to brief the Board members on the case. described the location of the property in question and explained that the applicant (Mrs.Price)wished to be permitted to place a second mobile home or travel trailer on the lot for a limited period of time so that the applicant's handicapped mother could live in the trailer and be cared for. called on the applicant to present his case. explained that the second unit was necessary so that his wife's handicapped mother could be close -by and properly cared for.He added that the unit would be strictly for her and would not be available for rent or lease to anyone else. 131.Mr.Vaughn asked i f the unit would meet the setbacks of the General Rural zone as an accessory building. replied that i t could be done. asked what period of time was allowed for the use. replied that the Zoning Ordinance allowed for up to a nine (9)month period. 135.Mr.Vaughn asked if,after the nine month period,did the appli- cant have to come before the Board again. 136.Mr.Newcomer explained that they would have to come before the Board but it would not be a public hearing nor would they have to pay another fee. 137.Mr.Vaughn asked i f there was any medical proof of the illness. 138.Mr.Newcomer replied that the Board could request proof of the actual medical hardship. 139.Chairman asked i f there were any additional comments. 140.Furness/Vaughn M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of tliF City of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby granting a temporary and revocable permit to place a second mobile home or travel trailer unit on the applicant's property located at 1328 N.Gold Drive,Apache Junction, Arizona.This permit shall be issued for a period Page 10 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 of not more than nine (9)months,commencing on December 2,1980.At the end of this nine (9)month period,the applicant must again appear before the Board to request issuance of a new permit. As a further condition of this permit: 1.Only the applicant's mother may reside in the mobile home or travel trailer.If the structure is vacated by this person,the structure shall not be occupied by any other person or persons. 2.All applicable regulations of public agencies having jurisdiction shall be complied with. 3.All other requirements of Article 8 (GR Zoning District)of the City Zoning Ordinance shall be complied with. 4.The second unit shall be installed as per the plat plan submitted with the application." The motion passed 5-0. 141.Chairman called upon the Executive Secretary to brief the members on the next case,BA -20-80. 142.Mr.Newcomer 143.Chairman 144.Mrs.Hoffarth explained that Mrs.Hoffarth wished to have a tem- porary permit to place a second mobile home on their property in order to house people who would care for the ill Mr.Hoffarth while Mrs.Hoffarth was at work. called on the applicant to present her case. explained that her husband had had six by-pass operations and needed supervision and care while she was at work.She added that they wished to place the second mobile home on the property for the people that would be responsible for caring for her husband. 145.Mr.Nesser asked if it was possible to place the two mobile homes 25'apart instead of 20'i. 14.6 Mrs.Hoffarth replied that it would not be a problem. 147.Mr.Newcomer explainedthat'as a detached accessory building., the 20'was the required separation. 148.Chairman 149.Mrs.Nelson 150.Mrs.Clay 151.Mr.Newcomer 152!.Mrs.Doak 153.Mr's.Hecht' called for other comments or questions. stated that she had no objection to the application. informed the Board that she had a power of attorney from the owner of the Mountain View Mobile Ranch, and that the owner objected to the the proposal. added that he had received a letter from a Mr. Cavendar in which was indicated that he approved of the proposal. added that she lived across the way and that she was in favor of the second mobile home on the property. explained that she was not in opposition to the use, but added that she had a lot of sick friends that could make use of the same situation.She pointed out that if one could do then so could others. Page 11 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 154.Mr.Newcomer 155.Chairman 156.Mr.Newcomer 157.Nesser/Furness 158.Mr.Newcomer 159.Mrs.Hoffarth 160.Chairman 161.Chairman 162.Mr.Newcomer 163.Chairman 164.Mr.Gripp pointed out that medical information on the con- dition of Mr.Hoffarth was available for review. asked what the staff recommendation was. read the memo from the Zoning Administrator into the record and added that he was in agreement. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of frE City of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby granting a temporary and revocable permit to place two mobile homes on the applicant's property located at 2076 W.Roundup,Apache Junction,Arizona.This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1.That i t is issued to alleviate a temporary hardship. 2.That all applicable regulations of agencies having jurisdiction be complied with. 3.Only those assigned to the care of Mr.Leo Hoffarth shall reside in the second mobile home. 4.All other requirements of Article 8 (GR Zoning district)of the Zoning Ordinance must be com- plied with. This permit shall be issued for a period of not more than nine (9)months commencing December 2,1980. At the end of this period,the applicant must appear before the Board to request the granting of a new permit if the applicant desires to continued using the second mobile home as a dwelling." asked i f the second mobile would be used for the people caring for Mr.Hoffarth. replied that the trailer to the rear of the property would have the caretakers. called fora vote on the motion. The motion passed 5-0. asked the Executive Secretary to brief the members on the next item,the follow up to BA -9-80. explained that the case had come before the Board at the May 19,1980 meeting and involved the request of the then property owner to obtain a variance to place a mobile home on the property and reduce the'lot size from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet. He added that the property had since been sold and that the new owner was having difficulty with meeting the requirements as set down by the Board. asked Mr.Gripp to explain the situation. explained that he wanted to change the usable area of the property and move the mobile home.According to the present requirements.it was not possible to get a truck into the rear of the property.He also wanted to install awnings and a patio on the mobile. He pointed out that with the rear awning being 11' from the rear lot line,it would be possible to get a vehicle into the area. Page 12 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 1,1980 165.Mr.Newcomer He added that the shed could be removed and showed a diagram of his proposal to the Board members. explained that there would be problems in meeting the CR-3 yard requirements as previously set forth by the Board. 166.Mr.Vaughn asked i f the Board could deal with anything other than the storage shed at this time. 167.Mr.Newcomer 168.Chairman 169.Mr.Newcomer 170.Mr.Nesser explained that there would have to be a public hearing before a decision could be made on the awnings. asked i f that was necessary even though the case had been heard before. explained that on the previous plat the 25'setback requirement was met.He added that the Zoning Administrator could give a 15'setback allowance to the front,but could not do i t for the rear. told Mr.Gripp that his problem was understood and that the Board was familiar with the odd -shaped lots in that area of the City. 171.Chairman pointed out that since the Board had not received any request in writing,that they were unable to act. 172.Mr.Nesser asked if Mr.Gripp could request mobile home setbacks. 173.Mr.Gripp pointed out that the setbacks throughout the neigh- bor hood were not consistent. 174.Chairman agreed with Mr.Gripp but added that the Board needed a written application before they could decide. He called for additional comments or questions.There being none,he asked if there mere any objections to adjourning the meeting. No objections were raised and the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respqttfully subpitted, les NewcoMer Acting Executive Secretary ved: Joe Jessamine; Chairman By: Don Nesser,Vice Chairman