Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-07 BOA MINUTESMINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA DECEMBER 7,1981 In Attendance Absent Mr.Burfiend Mrs.Luddy Mr.Morrison Mrs.Oberg Mr.Vaughn,Vice Chairman Mr.Jessamine,Chairman Chuck Newcomer,Executive Secretary Becky Nendza,Recording Secretary 1.Chairman 2.Ms.Nendza 3.Chairman 4.Vaughn/Luddy None Guests Donna Hopper Herman Hopper Georgia Robertson George Luddy opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.and asked the Recording Secretary to call the roll. did so and determined all members were present. requested a motion for approval of the "Minutes"dated November 16,1981. "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the "Minutes"of the special meeting of November 16,1981,be accepted as written." The motion passed 5-0-1,with Mr.Morrison abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 111 5.Chairman introduced the next agenda item,BA -7-81 (Sieberz),and asked staff to brief the Board. 6.Mr.Newcomer detailed the required data and explained the applicant is seeking a variance to yard setback requirements in order to place a trailer according to the plot plan included in the Board packets.The reason for so placing the trailer is the location of Weekes Wash on the property which puts the present trailer site in a floodway. 7.Chairman invited the applicant to speak. 8.Georgia Robertson introduced herself as representative for the applicant who lives out-of-state.She explained that the variance is sought for the safety of the trailer and its residents. 9.Chairman invited questions from the Board members. 10.Mr.Burfiend commented that trailers placed in flood zones should be placed on caissons or have retaining walls constructed to protect them and that this should be a requirement of the zoning ordinance. 11.Chairman asked for public comment in favor or opposition.There was none.Staff recommendation was requested. 12.Mr.Newcomer notedlthat the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator was included in the members'packets.He proceed to read the memo into the "Minutes."The memo recommended ' approval of the variance due to the flood problem being due to topography,the applicant's attempt at resolving the matter uses sound construction practices,and the likelihood of the roadway most affected ever being developed is remote. Page 2 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 13.Mr.Morrison 14.Mr.Newcomer 15.Mr.Morrison 16..Mr.Burfiend 17.Mr., Newcomer 18.Mr.Vaughn 19.Mr.Newcomer 20.Ms.Robertson 21.Mr.Newcomer 22.Mr.Vaughn. 23_Ms-.Robertson 24..Mr..Vaughn 25.Mr.Newcomer 26;:Mr.Morrison 27.Mr.Newcomer 28.Chairman 29.'MS.Robertson 30.Mr.Burfiend 31.Ms.Luddy asked for clarification of "Collector Street." explained that a collector street is meant to take traffic out of a local neighborhood area and route it onto an arterial street -a major street for collecting traffic out of or into a neighborhood area.He pointed out the definition could be found in the Street Classification Plan of the city. Arterials are the busiest,collectors being the second order volume of traffic,and local streets providing access to individual homes. stated he could not find the subject property. reported that the sign was down. said he had posted a sign at the corner of Cody Street asked for verification that the mobile home is currently situated as shown on the diagram in his packet. deferred to the applicant's representative,Ms. Robertson. said that there could be a mobile home there now, but she was unsure of its location. acknowledged that there was a trailer there when he inspected the property fifteen days ago,although i t was not hooked up. asked i f this trailer was "grandfathered." replied that both 11/4 acre lots'trailer spaces were grandfathered. inquired concerning the setbacks for the grandfathered spaces. noted that the present trailer sits back further than 10;probably about 20-25'. asked for clarification of "grandfathered"rights." answered that the city passed an ordinance concerning grandfathered rights and a trailer in place in 1979 would be protected by the grandfathering. asked Ms.Robertson i f the trailer could be moved forward. responded that it would not be possible due to Weekes Wash. restated his opinion that,i f trailers in flood zones would be placed on caissons or behind retaining walls, such cases would not be coming before the Board. pointed out that on the bus tour for the proposed General Plan it was mentioned that a major problem was blockage by residents of washes,forcing water into streets and neighboring properties.Washes need to be kept open and flowing. 32.Mr.Morrison ••asked ifLtheapplicant-was.aware-of the effect having a trailer m a flood area has on'insurance Page 3 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 33.Ms.Robertson 34-,Mr.Morrison 35,,Mr.Newcomer 36.,Mr.Morrison , 37.,Mr.Newcomer 38:,Mr.Vaughn 39,Mr.Newcomer '40.Mr.Vaughn 41.Mr.Newcomer 42,Chairman 43.Ms.Robertson 44,Mr.Newcomer 45,Chairman 46,Ms.-RObertson 47,Chairman 48_Mr.Vaughnr answered that the applicant was knowledgeable on this issue.She repeated the applicant's objective is to increase safety of his property. inquired i f the proposed General Plan specified what could be built in a floodplain. replied that that was not addressed directly in the General Plan. expressed concern that a trailer be placed in the wash area. responded that the trailer would be required to be placed above the flood elevation on the property. referred to the packet diagram of the property and asked the distance from the patio to the edge of Weekes Wash. replied that the distance shown on the diagram (230')was probably accurate to the drainage- way itself.He further explained that beyond the drainageway is the floodway,the distance of which from the patio could not be defined since i t depended on the amount of rain. stated that to the actual drainageway,itself, the distance is approximately 230'. agreed. commented that the lower portion of the property cannot be used,then,due to the floodplain. verified this. suggested a recess be granted for the Board to review the additional materials provided by the applicant's representative. reconvened the meeting after a five-minute recess.He explained that the factor of safety is well -received.He further detailed the setbacks from existing roads and explained that, although not currently used much,it may be well -travelled in the future.He stated the Board feels the setback should be 20'from at least one of these roads (either Cody or Wickiup). Since 20'from the roadway would place the trailer in jeopardy of floodwater from Weekes Wash,he asked i f the trailer could be moved 20'South of Cody. asked i f she could view the property to perform measurement and confer with the applicant before committing an answer. reasoned that,i f there was no hurry,the property could be viewed by the Board with this new concept in mind. wanted to know i f the size of the trailer could be limited from 14X60 instead of 14X70. Page 4 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 49.Ms.Robertson 50.Mr.Burfiend 51.Chairman 52.Luddy/Oberg 53.Chairman 54.Mr.Newcomer 55.Chairman 56.Mr.Herman Hopper 57.Ms.Luddy 58.Mr.Hopper 59.Ms.Luddy 60.Mr.Hopper 61.Mr.Vaughn 62.Mr.Hopper 63.Mr.Vaughn 64.Mr.Newcomer preferred to measure the property for this suggested site. reminded the Board that the Zoning Administrator agreed with the proposed relocation of the trailer and opined that Cody would probably not be developed.He suggested approval of the application. called for a motion. MIS "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that case BA -7-81 be continued until the next regular meeting of the Board,January 4,1982." The motion passed 5-1 with Mr.Vaughn voting no. after a suggested meeting of the Board with Ms.Robertson to view the property was determined to possibly be illegal due to a quorem being present,it was decided that the members would go individually to inspect the site. The next item of business was requested. briefed the Board on ease no.BA -8-81 (Hopper). asked the applicant to comment. introduced himself and explained that the mobile home and septic tank were placed with the expectation of dividing the parcel into two lots.However,that was never done and cannot now be done. asked when the trailer was placed. stated he had nothing to do with setting the trailer,but had only rented the property.He noted that he had not researched the zoning requirements. asked him to verify that the date the mobile home was placed was January 21,1981. said he believed that date was accurate. asked if a building permit was obtained. replied that the tenant had not obtained a building permit. asked staff whose responsibility it was to obtain the permit. replied that the ultimate responsibility was the property owner's.However,a rental agreement between the property owner and the renter could establish the responsibility upon the renter. 65.Mr.Vaughn inquired of Mr.Hopper i f such an agreement existed. Page 5 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 66.Mr.Hopper answered "no." 67.Ms.Luddy asked who placed the cement slab and when it was placed. 68.Mr.Hopper answered that the slab was placed prior to the setting of the trailer,but he was unsure of the date.He was sure,however,that it was poured prior to incorporation of the city. pointed out that,according to the information received by the Board,the slab was not in before 1979.But that in a 1980 aerial photo, the slab was in. 69.Ms.Luddy 70.Mr.Vaughn asked staff i f the photographs could be viewed by the Board. 71.Mr.Newcomer 72.Mr.Burfiend 73.Chairman 74.Chairman 75.Mr.Newcomer 76.Mr.Burfiend 77.Mr.Vaughn 78.Mr.Newcomer 79.Mr.Vaughn 80.Chairman answered affirmatively and requested a short break to acquire them. noted that the date:the slab was placed was not relavant. granted a recess. reconvened the meeting after a ten-minute recess during which the Board members examined the aerial photographs.Staff was asked to read the memo from the Zoning Administrator. read the memo which stated that the mobile home had apparently been placed in November 1980,a complaint was received in January,1981. Researching the permits,it was discovered none had been issued and a cease and desist order was issued.A permit application was submitted and denied due to insuffieient setbacks.In April,1981,a variance applicatior was submitted,but was returned as incomplete. No further action was taken until November, 1981 when the current application was processed. suggested that a variance be granted for a period of five years to allow the property owner and the tenant time to rectify the situation. asked staff i f the trailer had been occupied since January. replied that the mobile home was placed sometime at the end of 1980. expressed surprise that the trailer could be occupied for such a long period of time after issuance of a cease and desist order. stated that Apache Junction is new,and changes by residents are going to be necessary to conform to zoning regulations.However,this will take time and,when discrepancies are unintentional,cooperation between the city and those in conflict with the regulations shoulc be achieved.Therefore,it was suggested the applicant be allowed reasonable time to rectify this situation. Page 6 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 81.Ms.Luddy commented that,to her understanding,the applicant did have a chance to rectify the situation,having been served with notice nearly a year ago.She also pointed out that,according to information in the Board packets,i t is unlawful to grant a variance when the non-compliance is -self-imposed as in this case. 82.Chairman stated that he is not recommending approval of the variance,but is suggesting a length of time be granted for resolving the problem. 83.Ms.Luddy cautioned concerning the legality of granting a variance. 84.Mr.Hopper 85.Ms.Luddy 86.Mr.Hopper 87.Chairman 88.Mr., Hopper 89.Chairman 90.Mr.Vaughn 91.Mr.Burfiend 92.Mr.Hopper 93.Mr.Burfiend 94.Mr.Hopper 95.Chairman 96.Mr.Vaughn 97.Mr.Burfiend 98.Mr.Vaughn detailed the actions taken in the past several months and reiterated the information presented in the Zoning Administrator's memorandum.He stated that he realized that,although the slab was placed in accordance with county specifications year ago,it would have to be redone now that the city has incorporated. However,he was unaware that the tenant was not in compliance when the trailer was placed and only acted after the tenant informed him of the problem. asked -if the tenant placed the correct size of trailer for the existing slab. replied that the trailer was larger than the slab. asked i f the trailer was now the applicant's. answered that it was not;he only rented the lot. noted that,i f the variance is not granted, i t is the tenant's responsibility to move the trailer or bring i t into compliance. pointed out that the 20'requirement was established in 1974 and the slab never legally met this stipulation. asked i f there was a lease for a specified period of time. answered negatively. wondered what cost would be involved to the tenant,i f the trailer must be moved. was unable to estimate the cost,but indicated what steps would be necessary. restated his opinion that a reasonable length of time be granted the applicant to rectify the situation. replied that thirteen months had already passed. restated that five years would be no hardship on Apache Junction. stated that five years would set a precedent and granting the variance would be breaking the law. Page :7 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 7,1981 99..Chairman noted that that was true,but a.time could be. allowed to change the situation. 100.Ms.Luddy said the time element seems to need clarifi- cation.Six months seemed reasonable in her opinion. 101.Chairman agreed. 102.Mr.Morrison wanted to know how far from the applicant's property line it was to another structure. 103.Mr.Hopper told him it was approximately 100'. 104.Mr.Morrison 105.Chairman 106.Mr.Vaughn felt i t should be taken into consideration that there was,no road or anything with which the noncompliance would conflict.: pointed out that the applicant only indirectly self-imposed this problem since the tenant was the actual producer of the noncompliance. asked i f the applicant had obtained a permit when he placed his own mobile home. 107.Mr.Hopper answered "no,"that a permit was required only for the septic tank. 108.Mr.Vaughn replied that,although not enforced,permits had been required since 1964. 109.Mr.Hopper 110.Chairman 111,Mr,Hopper 112.Chairman 113..Mr,Vaughn 114.Ms, luddy 115.Mr, ,Vaughn 116..Mr,Hopper pointed out that he was not opposed to complying it only would be .a hardship on the tenant. asked i f the tenant could afford to move the trailer.Advised applicant that,i f this variance was approved,there would be discon- tent among adjacent property owners,and an undesirable precedent would be set.He asked for verification that the applicant was asking that once the tenant leaves the variance would remain. replied: that ;a stipulation should be set:so that would not happen. asserted that it would be pragmatic to grant six months for removal of the trailer. declared that the ultimate hardship is only being prolonged. noted that the applicant has not confirmed that there would be a financial hardship for the tenant to move the trailer,but the time would allow for arrangements to be made. pointed out that in six months the cost to the tenant will have increased. brought to the Board's attention that the reason the cease and desist order had not been strenously enforced was there was no threat to safety or health.The only violation is that the trailer sits too close to a property line which is 100'from another mobile home. Page 8 -Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 17,1981 117.Luddy/Oberg "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,hereby denying the requested,variance to yard setback requirements fo the GR zoning district of the City of Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance in case BA -8-81 for the property legally described as: the Southwest 4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 4 of the Southwest 4 of the South- west 1/4,of Section 17,,Township.1 North, Range 8 last of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. The Board bases its decision on the following reasons: 1)Under Section 9-462.06H.2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes,i f the Board finds that the circumstances are self-imposed by the property owner,the Board is expressly prohibited by law from granting a variance.However,the Board rules that the applicant is not in violation until after six (6)months. (This motion is the amended version.Ms.Luddy had read the suggested motion for the pre- ceeding case in error,but corrected herself ' when staff called her attention to the mis- reading.) The motion passed 3-1-2,with Mr.Burfiend and Mr.Vaughn abstaining. 118.Chairman there being no further business,adjourned the meeting by concensus at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, arle -7NdWtomer . Acting Executive Secretary Approved:. eZgAT.,efei feh. 44 gaffe,Chairman